The Truth of The Christian Abrogation of Mosaic Law
And Freedom from Dietary Limits Laid down by God
According to the Scripture of the People of the BookBy Jamilah Boulter
Edited by Abu Micael
Why do Christians Eat Pork?One of the many questions that arise on the Muslim message boards in which non-Muslims participate is the very relaxed attitude Christians have concerning what they eat. There seems no rhyme or reason to the standards they set for themselves, in what they eat, with the worship of our Lord.
For example, when a Christian fasts, he often allows himself bread and water. In other words, he may abstain from those foods that he usually indulges himself with, and keep his body and soul together with plain, monotonous fare. Even if he abstains from all food during his fast, he will usually allow himself water. I do not mean to diminish the sincere fasting of those Christian sects, like some Coptic Christians in Egypt, who will abstain from all animal products, including diary products, fish and eggs, during the entire fasting period, and who, from sunrise to sunset they, like the Muslims, abstain from eating or drinking anything at all. Others, however, just play lip-service to the official fasting periods, giving up a favourite item, such as chocolate, during the period.
Another example is Lent, a forty day fasting period before the Passover. This period begins with a holiday, often associated with Rio de Janeiro, now commonly a spectacle of processions of spectacular floats, and of naked flesh and flashy costumes dancing in the street, called Carnaval. In other cities, such as New Orleans, this festival is called Mardi Gras. The Rio event is now broadcast all over the world so that even the people not participating can get a taste of the excitement and a view of gyrating half, sometimes almost fully, naked bodies.
Originally, however, this was Shrove Tuesday, the holy day that people emptied their larders of all meat products, cooking them in a great feast that every one shared in because they would now fast (abstain from) meat for 40 days. If they left any meat in the larder, 40 days would be enough time to see that it went off and became inedible. Hence the feast: to consume all of it and not waste any of it. In addition, the people would build effigies of saints and carry them on biers or litters through the streets in a procession whilst they themselves dressed in sackcloth to show they were entering a fasting period. These may be the origins of the huge floats now built on motorized vehicles in Rio and the costumes the dancers now wear.
From this original holiday, we can surmise that the fast was principally the fasting of meat, which means, of course, that one may consume fish (the produce from fishing) or vegetables (the produce of tilling the earth). Even that 'partial', but general, fast has become diluted so that now a Christian is free to choose what he will abstain from (if anything) during the Lent period, including non edibles – such as using his or her car. 'What are you giving up for Lent?' is now a common question among practicing Christians. Among practicing Roman Catholics, it is (was?) common to eat fish on Fridays, abstaining from the normal meat dish one eats on other days.
So why do they have these complicated and only partially adhered to rules of diet, if all dietary Law has been repealed by Jesus, peace be upon him? I think it is because there were strict dietary laws which were gradually eroded as Christianity absorbed more and more customs from the varied tribes of people who took Christianity as their religion.
Why? Because we can see the first stages of the rearguard action to defend these dietary laws in Acts, where James, the brother of Jesus, sought to stem the erosion which Paul's doctrine had already precipitated, saying:
Trouble not them which from the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them that they abstain from meats offered to idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.The seriousness of the dietary prohibition is such that it is compared with 'fornication'. This offence doesn't seem all that serious now, since it is common practice all over the modern world for young men and women to experiment with sex before marriage, or 'live together' without getting married, or even go through a succession of sexual partners for pleasure without any commitments each to the other. Among believing Muslims, however, it is a very serious offence. So serious that it often carries with it an unofficial death sentence due to the shame the family feels in which fornication occurs.
This unofficial death sentence is cultural, but born of the prohibition of sex without marriage. The Islamic Divine Law does not allow a death sentence in these cases, and condemns such 'honour killings' as murder. According to Divine Law, however, the offending parties of a fornication case, both the boy and girl, should be scourged and then exiled from the community of Muslims in which the event took place for one year lest, in the hereafter, their punishment were to be roasted in a cauldron during the life of the grave until the Day of Judgement, should they died on it without repentance.
The defence that the Christians I spoke to have erected to justify their non-observance of The Torah Laws, especially concerning what they eat, is three pronged, centring around, in the Gospels, Matthew Chapter 15 and Mark Chapter 7. They also cite Acts 10 from Luke's scripture, and various passages from Galatians and Romans in which Paul argues the abrogation of Mosaic Law.
These evidences I will, God willing, present and examine first. I will then discuss dietary law using Islamic proofs. Finally, I will present evidence that Jesus, may he be praised, came not to abrogate, but confirm, the Mosaic Law to the Jews, and examine the claim that Jesus was to allow the people to distance themselves from that which had been added to it by the priesthood, and his mission was, as is written in Quran:
“to attest the Law which was before me, and to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you...”and thus that Christians are obliged, according to their scriptures, and now according to ours, to follow the Monotheistic Laws of God that are enshrined in the Quran, which confirms what is in the Gospel and Torah .The Abrogation of Mosaic Law in the New Testament
The Christians say that, according to St. Paul, the Mosaic laws of practice have been abrogated for Christians. There is no need to follow the coercion of external Law, embodied in the dictates of the scribes and priests of the Pharisees, imposed on men. Rather, men should follow their inner conscience which results in following the spiritual Laws of practice God demands’.
Ignorance is bliss?
Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake For the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and you are disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.Indeed, this seems a clear licence that anything offered up by anybody, believer or not, is permissible to eat. It even seems to indicate you need not speak God's blessing over the food before eating it. But Paul then gives a proviso.
If any man says unto you, ‘this (food) is offered in sacrifice unto idols,’ eat (it) not for his sake, nor your conscience sake.He also says,
If I, by Grace, be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that which I give thanks? Whether, therefore, you eat or drink, or whatsoever you do, do it all to the Glory of God.So, even according to Paul, there is a minimum standard, if you know. It is only if you don't know, and take care not to ask, that you have the liberty to partake of whatever is offered. Even so, one should give thanks for God's Grace before consuming what is set before you. Thus, according to the doctrine of Paul, ignorance, for the Christian, even deliberate ignorance, is bliss, and you will not be blamed for that.
Christians are free from the Law of Moses?
The principle behind embracing ignorance is that the old Law, exteriorly imposed, is dead. The new Law, faith in Jesus Christ, is what is living, and spiritually palpable.
Wherefore, my brethren, you also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that you should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the Law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the Law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.Paul even reasons with us giving Abraham, peace be upon him, as an example:
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the Law [were to be] heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. Because the Law works wrath: for where no Law is, [there is] no transgression. Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by Grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the Law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, before Him whom he believed, even God, who quickens the dead and calls those things which be not, as though they were.Or are they?
This vision of faith being the substitute of works is emphatically denied by James, the brother of Jesus:
My brothers, what is the gain if anyone says he has faith, but he does not have works? Is the faith able to save him? - faith, if it does not have works, is dead, being by itself. …out of the works the faith was made perfected. …a man is justified out of works, and not out of faith only. …as the body is dead apart from the spirit, so also faith is dead apart from works.He, too, gives examples and a rationale:
But if a brother or a sister is naked and may be lacking in daily food, and any one of you say to them, Go in peace, be warmed and filled, but does not give them the things the body needs, what gain is it? So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead being by itself.But someone will say, ‘You have faith, and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith out of my works. You believe that God is One. You do well; even the demons believe and shudder. But are you willing to know, O vain man, that faith, apart from works, is dead?
Was not our father, Abraham, justified by works, offering up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith worked with his works; and out of the works the faith was made perfected. And the Scripture was fulfilled, saying, "And Abraham believed God, and it was counted for righteousness to him;" and he was called, Friend of God. You see, then, that a man is justified out of works, and not out of faith only.
But in the same way Rahab, the harlot, was also justified out of works, having received the messengers, and sending them out by another way. For, as the body is dead apart from the spirit, so also faith is dead apart from works.
Christ redeems, not the Law!
‘However,’ the Christian replies, ‘Paul deems the Law of Moses is abrogated because Christ redeems the Christian if he breaks it’.
Now we know that what things so-ever the Law says, it says to them who are under the Law: that every mouth may be stopped, and the entire world may become guilty before God. Therefore, by the deeds of the Law, there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the Law is the knowledge of sin.But now, the righteousness of God, without the Law, is manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God, which is, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified, freely, by His Grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what Law? Of works? Nay: but by the Law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law.
‘And the Johannine Gospel, apparently, supports Paul’s doctrine,’ they continue:
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.Christ's redemption is IN the Law.
On the other hand, Paul contradicts himself in another letter, to the Galatians, where he proposes that the Law of Love plus the Law of faith in Jesus Christ as Redeemer produces, in the believer, deeds of the Law inherent in him.
For, brothers, you were called to freedom. Only do not use the freedom for an opening to the flesh. But through love serve one another. For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in this: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, be careful that you are not consumed by one another.But I say, ‘Walk in the spirit, and you will not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another; lest whatever you may will, these things you do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under Law.’
Now the works of the flesh are clearly revealed, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lustfulness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, fighting, jealousies, angers, rivalries, divisions, heresies, envying, murders, drunkenness, revelling, and things like these; of which I tell you beforehand, as I also said before, that the ones practicing such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control. Against such things there is not a Law. But the ones belonging to Christ crucify the flesh with its passions and lusts. If we live in the spirit, let us also walk in the spirit.
Clearly, Paul is not saying that which was forbidden by the Law is allowed now. Rather, he is saying that a believer living spiritually will naturally do that which is of the spirit, and by his conscience shun, inwardly and in his actions, those works that mark him as a disbeliever, undeserving of the final reward.
The separation of Gentile and Jew
So what is Paul actually driving at? I think it is that the conceit and hypocrisy of the Jewish priesthood and their followers have taken them out of the believers camp, and their adherence to some, but not all, of the stipulations in the Law, for the sake of Jewish tradition, helps them in no way in the hereafter.
Furthermore, at least according to Paul, the sincerity and good will of the non-Jew who has come to recognize the true faith produces in him the good deeds that bring reward in the hereafter. These deeds are accepted despite the lack of strict adherence in such to the signs of the covenant with Abraham, may God praise him, (i.e. circumcision) and the lack of knowledge in their possession concerning the Mosaic Law. Thus he says:
For circumcision verily profits you, if you keep the Law: but if you be a breaker of the Law, your circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore, if the uncircumcision keeps the righteousness of the Law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision, which is by nature, if it fulfil the Law, judge thee, who, by the Letter and circumcision transgress the Law?Explaining:
For not the hearers of the Law [are] just before God, but the doers of the Law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law, these, having not the Law, are a Law unto themselves. Whoso show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts between them while accusing or else excusing one another.
Is Paul's damning indictment of the Jews actually justified? Let us see. I was reading some letters from Rabbi Nancy Kreimer, a Jewish rabbi in Philadelphia, written to Paul of Tarsus in absentia. In the fourth of these (7) letters, she writes:
For you, Law was revealed by God and problematic only in its keeping Jews and Gentiles separate. For many Jews today, the divine origins of Law are questionable and one of the main reasons for continuing distinctive Jewish practices is precisely the separating of Jew and Gentile.I must confess that there are some parts of Jewish Law that I uphold just for that reason, such as my intent to circumcise my children on the eighth day had they been male (which they were not!).
But that is not the whole story. I do not believe, as you did believe, that the Law is from God.
It seems, therefore, that Paul is right. The Law is simply a badge of Jewry, no longer a means of salvation for the Jews, because they do not believe with their hearts.
Liberty (from the Letter of the Law) does not grant licence (to break the Law).
Commenting on the words “There is liberty” in 2 Corinthians, 3:17, the well known Biblical commentator, Russell, says:
When a Christian is converted, receiving the Holy Spirit as an earnest of redemption, there is bestowed at the same time freedom: (1) from the law (Galatians 4:18); (2) from fear (Romans 8:13); (3) from the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2); (4) from sin (Romans 6:18); and (5) from corruption (Romans 8:21). The “thou shalt” and “thou shalt not” of the Old Testament disappear in the presence of the Spirit of adoption (Galatians 4:7) through which we become imitators of God as beloved children (Ephesians 5:1), walking in love.However, other commentators disagree about this verse here, and the whole of the chapter it is a part of. One commentator says:
The above comment from Russell is typical of many false deductions based upon Paul's teaching in this chapter. Jesus our Lord gave many negative commandments which may not be ignored by any Christian who hopes to be received in heaven. (See Matthew 5:19). There are seven negative commandments in the first twenty verses of Matthew 6. It is simply not true that “in Christ” we are freed from any “you shall” or “you shall not” commands. Liberty in Christ does not grant license.So, even according to Pauline doctrine, the Christians are not excused from the Law, but expected to live according to it, justified by faith in God through Jesus. Living by the Law in itself is not enough. What is required is Works AND Faith.
The Muslim perspective on Works: The deed and intention
Hasif Salahuddin comments on the following verses and authentic narrations:
And they were commanded not but they should worship God, and worship none but Him Alone, and to perform the ritual prayer and give the poor due, and that is the right religion.It is neither their meat nor their blood that reaches God, but it is piety from you that reaches Him.
And Say! 'Whether you hide what is in your breast or reveal it, God knows.'
The Messenger of God also said the following. (The first authentic narration is from the son of the second Caliph, ibn 'Umar bin Al-Khatab, whilst the second is from the most prolific of narrators of authentic reports about the Prophet, Abú Hurrayrah.)
The reward of deeds depends upon the intention, and a person will get the reward according to what he has intended. So whoever emigrated for worldly benefits or for a woman to marry, his emigration will be for what he emigrated for.
God looks not at your figures, nor at your outward appearance, but he looks at your hearts and deeds.
On the basis of these sayings, Islamic scholars are of the unanimous opinion that the real foundation of one's action is intention and everyone will get a reward or punishment according to one's intention It is true that one's intention is founded in ones heart.
That is to say, one has first to make up ones mind for what one subsequently proceeds to do. Furthermore, it is not appropriate to express verbally that which you intend, nor is ritually doing so part of Islamic practice according to the Prophetic traditions. Evident from this is the point that sincerity is a necessity in every action.
In other words, every righteous deed must be done for the pleasure of God if it is to be accepted, and mixing your intention for a purpose other than sincerity is hypocrisy and will not be accepted by Him. Therefore, it is essential that every noble action be based on the two virtues of the heart and the deed – the sincerity, which includes faith because it is sincere for God, and works, which should be far from that which is base or evil. The Heart should be purged of the lust for all things that destroy the noble deed, such as hypocrisy, ostentation, and greed for wealth, and similar mean things fall into the category of such evil. Since the true condition of the heart is known only to God, the true position of ones actions will be known only on the Day of Judgment, when one will receive reward or retribution from God. Never-the-less, in this world, one should be treated according to one's apparent condition (by society), whilst leaving the hidden to God to deal with as, and when, He sees fit.
According to ’Abdullah ibn ’Abbás, a foster son of the Prophet whom he prayed would be the foremost in knowledge concerning the Quran, the Messenger of Allah also said:
My Lord (God) said 'Verily God, ta'ála (the Highest), has ordered that the good deeds and bad deeds be written down. Then He explained clearly how (they would be written). He who intends to do a good deed and does not do it, then God records it for him as a full good deed, but if he carries out his intention, God writes it down for him with Him from 10 to 700 times over, or even many times more. But if he intends to do and evil deed and does not do it, then God writes down for with Him a full good deed, but if he intends it and does it, God writes it down (just) as one (full) bad deed.’’This last narration is what is known as hadiyth qudsi because Messenger of God specifically indicates that the content is a direct order from God that he has been told to convey. They are next to Quran as a source of Islamic jurisprudence. Such narrations are palpably revealed to the Prophet by means of inspiration. This one mentions the magnitude of Devine Blessings which He (God) bestows upon His faithful worshippers now (in the believers' records & perhaps for their lives in the Mundane world), and will bestow upon His worshippers on the Day of Judgment for one's life in the Hereafter.
The Lawful and Forbidden food
Specifically to do with eating forbidden food, God says in the Quran,
But as for him who is forced by severe hunger, with no inclination towards sin, then surely God is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.And,
But if one is forced by necessity without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing the due limits, then there is no sin on him. Truly, God is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Concerning the Mercy and Justice of God, Ibn 'Umar reported that Messenger of God said:
God likes that his allowances be used, just as He dislikes that disobedience to Him is committed.Therefore, in similar circumstances, we should do as the Messenger of God ruled on the following question.
Abu Waqid Al-Layth narrated that some of the Companions asked the Prophet:
‘O Messenger of God! We live in a land where famine often strikes us. Therefore, when are we allowed to eat the meat of forbidden animals?’Messenger of God replied, ‘When you neither find food for lunch and dinner nor have any produce to eat, then eat from it’
These verses and narrations show us the infinite Mercy of God, who not only makes allowances for His worshippers' difficulties, but encourages them to take advantage of those allowances when appropriate. If you are in difficulty and don't make use of His allowance, that is reprehensible in itself – and God alone knows how He will deal with such ingratitude.
So, when you are in dire need, the forbidden becomes lawful during that need. But that does not mean forever. Once the crisis is past, one should repent the occasion that led to partaking of the normally forbidden and return back to the fine and lawful. Specifically referring to food that is lawful, God says,
The food of the People of the Book is lawful to you and your food is lawful to them.
In the Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Quran in the English Language, the authors mention that Az-Zuhri said – and it is said that ’Ali ibn Talib, the fourth Caliph and the Prophet’s son in Law, gave a similar verdict,
There is no harm in eating animals slaughtered by Christians. But if you hear the one who slaughters the animals mentioning other than God's name, don't eat of it; But if you do not hear that, then God has allowed the eating of animals slaughtered by them, though He knows their disbelief.
They also reported that Al Hasan and Ibrahím said, There is no harm in eating of an animal slaughtered by an uncircumcised person.
Finally, Ibn Kathír reports in his abridged explanation of the Quran that Bukhári recorded that ’A‘ishah narrated that some companions asked,
‘O Messenger of God! Some people, recently converted from disbelief, bring us some meat over which we do not know if God's name was mentioned or not!’Messenger of God replied, ‘Mention God's Name on it and eat from it!’
Conclusion
In general, then, if not in the details, the difference between the Muslim position and the position of Paul concerning what is lawful or forbidden to eat, is that the Muslim must endeavour to ensure what he eats is lawful, and only eat a thing that is forbidden to eat if he has no alternative to keeping body and soul together. If the latter situation occurs, then he must pronounce the name of God over the food before eating it. Paul, on the other hand, says you must avoid eating a thing only if you know it is forbidden. If you do not know that a thing is forbidden, you are free to eat it as long as you thank God for its provision. The difference is subtle, but telling, but not so different as the position that many Christians take; that all restrictions are off.
Even so, it is a difference that should be corrected in your heart; corrected to submission to One God. James, the brother and apostle of Jesus, reminded us that even the demons that God is One and shudder even as they act against Him. Then he asks,
‘But are you willing to know, O vain man, that faith, apart from works, is dead?’
Faith and works are needed, and that means fully submitting to God. If you decide to do so, such submission and acknowledgement will be rewarded abundantly. God says in the Quran about the Christian who hears it and believes, and then acts on that belief:
Indeed now we have conveyed the Word to them, in order that they may remember. Those to whom we gave the Book, before it, believe in it. And when it is recited to them, they say, ‘We believe in it. Verily, it is the Truth from our Lord. Indeed, even before it we were Muslims.’ These will be given their reward twice over because they are patient, repel evil with good, and expend (in charity) what we provide for them. And when they hear evil, they withdraw from it, saying, ‘To us our deeds, and to you your deeds. Peace be unto you. We seek not (the way of) the ignorant’.
Everything has been Made Lawful to Eat by Inspiration?
The second of the arguments, which Christians corresponding with Muslims have used to back up their claim, is that Acts 10 makes what was previously forbidden to eat now lawful. The chapter relates a dream inspired in the chief apostle and co-leader of the disciples, Peter.
The verses most quoted in support of their argument are just five: Verses 11-15.
And he saw the heaven being opened and a certain vessel like a great sheet coming down on him, bound by four corners, and being let down onto the earth by them. Therein were all the kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, and the wild beasts, and the creeping things, and the birds of the heaven. And a voice came to him, saying, ‘Rise, Kill, slay and eat!’ But Peter said, ‘Not so, Lord, because I have never eaten any thing anything impure or unclean.’And again a voice came to him a second time, saying, ‘What things God made clean, do not call impure.’
The verses are actually in the context of a visit he was about to receive from the servants of a Gentile, the first Gentile Peter was to minister to. Hitherto, despite the martyrdom of Stephen, Peter, like all the disciples, had seen his mission as being only to the Jews, just as Jesus' injunction had ordered. This is clear from a verse in the next chapter, demonstrating the resistance he had to overcome to change its orientation.
Indeed, they who were scattered by the oppression taking place over Stephen passed through to Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the Word to no one except only to Jews. (Acts 11:19)
This vision changed that orientation and converted Peter to Paul's camp, and eventually persuaded him, unlike James, the brother of Jesus, that his services were needed to guide the new Christians living among the Romans.
Does it make sense, therefore, to interpret it literally? Is it true that every kind of living animal thing that walks on four legs, such as a lion or cheetah or wild dog, or monitor lizard, could now be eaten by Christians? Is it true that any creature that stoops from the air is edible; a bat, for instance, or falcon or vulture, perhaps? That any creeping thing is allowed as your repast, such as roaches, rats and cobras, or wild beasts such as killer whales, sharks and crocodiles? Does it make sense? Would you actually utilize such a license?
If you would not, are you not being ungrateful? Remember the lesson that Jesus taught in John 8 concerning the manna from heaven that the Jews got bored with. The context of the story from Numbers 11 was the lust of the Children of Israel, who craved alimentary variety, saying:
Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt for nought; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic: but now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all save this manna to look upon.
What happened when they rejected God's bounty? In the same chapter, God furiously condemns the rejection of manna as their source of sustenance because, in wishing for tasty meat, they complained they had been better off in Egypt – from whence they had been delivered: He told them,
You shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days, but a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you; because of the fact that you have rejected The Lord, who is among you, and have wept before him, saying, ‘Why came we forth out of Egypt?’
However, God is merciful in this world as well as the next, and he toned down the manner of granting them what they wished. So God told Moses to:
Say unto the people, ‘Sanctify yourselves against to-morrow, and you shall eat flesh; for ye have wept in the ears of the Lord, saying, “Who shall give us flesh to eat? For it was well with us in Egypt”. Therefore the Lord will give you flesh, and you shall eat.’
That, however, didn’t prevent the Just punishment from befalling them once their base desires had been satiated. When it was over, the people were decimated by a plague, and Moses called that place Kibroth Hatta'awah because they buried there the people that had lusted.
So, if you don't eat all those nasty carnivores, scavengers and creepy crawlies that He has permitted, does it not mean you are in danger of a similar vengeance being brought down on you because you do not?
Of course it doesn't. Most of them may actually be bad for you and your digestion. Because this is not a literal licence to eat what you may. It is a symbolic dream, which Peter understood all too well, that draws a parallel between the “untouchable, impure Gentile”, and the “untouchable, impure food” referred to, each type of animal representing the different and varied tribes of people the world over. One is clearly forbidden, but the other (the Gentile) is not. And Peter understood the dream that way.
Incidentally, it is significant, here, that Peter recognized all the animals presented to him as being impure to eat. This means that the concept of certain types of food being impure continued to be part of the disciples mindset, indicating that their teacher, Jesus, had not taught them any differently.
Let us now look at the context of the dream. Peter had been in Lydda, but was called to Joppa because a certain lady disciple, Tabitha, well known for her good works and charity, had died. He stayed with a certain Simon, a tanner, in Joppa, and whilst he was there, came to her house and raised her up alive again. For this his fame spread far and wide.
A certain Roman, who was also a believer and generous alms giver, received a visit from an angel who told him;
Cornelius! Your prayers and your alms went up for a memorial before God. And now send men to Joppa and call for Simon who is surnamed Peter. This one is lodged with one Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea. He will tell you what you must do.
The next day, when the men Cornelius sent were passing along on the road, and drawing near to the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray about the sixth hour. And he became hungry and wished to taste food. But as they were preparing it, an ecstasy fell on him. Whereupon the vision, mentioned earlier, occurred. Peter's reaction to the vision was to doubt within himself what the vision which he saw might be, and just as Peter pondered concerning the vision, the Spirit said to him,
‘Behold, three men are seeking you. But rising up, go down and go with them, not discriminating, because I have sent them’.
On passing, please note that in verse 3 and 7 of Acts 10, the messenger identified as telling Cornelius to send his men to find Peter was an angel, but the messenger who says to Peter ‘I sent (the men at your gate)’ is called the Spirit. This identifies, yet again, The Spirit with an angel of God, just as the Quran does.
Coming back to the storyline in Acts 10 and 11, when Peter arrives at the Centurion's house, he says:
You know how unlawful it is for a man, a Jew, to unite with or to come near to one of another race. Yet God showed to me not to call a man impure or unclean. Therefore, I also came without complaint, being summoned.
So Cornelius told him about the visit he had received from the angel, and said
‘At once I sent to you, and you did well to come. Now then, we are all present before God to hear all the things having been commanded you by God.’And opening his mouth, Peter said, ‘Truly I see that God is not a respecter of faces, but in every nation the one fearing Him and working righteousness is acceptable to Him.’
The Jews that had come with him, and there were a lot who had accompanied him, were amazed at this change in policy, witnessing the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on the nations also. For they heard them speaking in languages and magnifying God. Then Peter answered, ‘Can anyone forbid the water that these not be baptized, who the Holy Spirit received, even as we also?’
When Peter recounted these events to the other disciples in Joppa in Acts 11, he reported that the Spirit said to me to go with them, not discriminating.
And after they had heard the whole story, their reaction was to keep silent and (then) to glorify God, saying, ‘Then God also has granted to the nations repentance unto life.’
It should be stressed, here, that being a gentile does not, and never has, cut people off from God’s mercy and guidance. Mere custom had solidified the division, conceived of and made law by the scholars among the Jews, between the Children of Israel and the other descendents of Abraham.
In fact it is one of the many misconceptions concerning the gentiles that they were foreign to his covenant because they were not Jews, descendants of Jacob. However, this is an error. The Jews were helped against the gentiles in the wars of God because the gentiles had lapsed, had become idolaters, not because they were foreign. Jews that rebelled, or became idolaters were just as subject to God's wrath as were the non-Jews, and non-Jews had their own prophets come to them, as can be seen even in the Bible with the prophet-hood of Jethro, Balam, Job and Jonah and the prophet-hood of Shu'ayb, Saleh, Ayoub, Younus and Hud in the Quran.
This is evident in the covenant of circumcision which Abraham made with God so that he would bless the descendants of his son, Ishmael in the land between the Euphrates and the Nile, and also his future son Isaac in the land of Canaan.
After hearing Peter and glorifying God, some men from them, Cypriots and Cyrenians, who had come to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists, announcing the gospel of the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believing, they turned to the Lord. … And a considerable crowd was added to the Lord.And Barnabas went out to Tarsus to seek Saul. And finding him, he brought him to Antioch. And it happened that many of them were gathered to them in the assembly a whole year. And they taught a considerable crowd. And the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.
(Acts 11:20-26)
Conclusion
So, as we have seen, the vision of Peter was not about food, even though he was hungry when the vision came to him (which may have been the reason he received the parable comparing nations to forbidden [animals for] food made legal for slaughter), but about breaking down the barriers of discrimination between Jewish Christians and the Christian followers growing among the Gentiles. Nowhere in the three chapters that give us the context of the dream does it even suggest that the literal interpretation (eating forbidden food) should be applied.
In fact, it isn't until much later that the subject of what is lawful to eat for the Gentiles is mentioned, when James, the brother of Jesus ordered a letter to be written and taken by the proselytising apostles wherever they preached, saying,
Hold back from sacrifices to idols, and blood, and that strangled, and from fornication; from which continually keeping yourselves, you will do well. Because in every city from ancient generations Moses has those proclaiming him, having been read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.
Although the letter does not conclusively deny that previously forbidden species of animals may now be eaten, it certainly confirms that certain methods of slaughter makes the eating of them unlawful, and cites the authority of Moses as the source of these prohibitions. The natural conclusion, therefore, is that none of the animals mentioned in Peter's dreams are actually permissible to eat, and his vision does not entail the relaxing of the prohibition from eating pork and pork derivatives.
It is Not What Goes into, Rather What Comes out of, the Mouth that Defiles a Man
The third prong of the Christian defence, are the passages in the Gospels of St. Matthew 15 and St. Mark 7. These passages really should be dealt together, since they describe the same event. So, despite differing in small points, an overall view can be obtained by examining the different viewpoints of the same event. This 'combination' or 'synopsis' of an event is a key defence of Christianity against the accusation levelled at their Scripture being 'self contradictory' or 'corrupted'. They say there is no conflict if one understands these are simply different viewpoints that account for the gaps in the other's narratives.
In these passages, the Christians interpret the statement that:
‘There is nothing from without a man that entering into him can defile him. But things that come out of him, those are they that defile the man.’to mean all restrictions are off concerning what we eat.
As in the earlier chapters, I hope to show that this is a gross misinterpretation of Jesus's statement, and that, rather than making legal what was prohibited in the Torah, actually upholds the Law of Moses against innovation.
Immediately following this verse is a statement of Jesus which I now depict in bold, ‘If any man has ears, let him hear.’
This verse is a huge signal that this is a PARABLE: a story designed to confuse the educated but elucidate the open heart, as Jesus explained, ‘because they, seeing, see not; and hearing, they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them are fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which says, “By hearing ye shall hear, and not understand; and seeing, you shall see but not perceive”.’
So, when we look at the context of Mark 7; 2-9 and the explanation of the PARABLE in Matthew 15; 17-20, we can come close to an understanding of this statement. Let’s look at this explanation,
‘Don’t you understand yet that whatever enters in at the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught?’
So, whatever we eat, it is processed in the stomach and ejected through the bowels. That which is ejected is obviously defiled, but whatever goes in is filtered, or processed, by our bodily functions, so we take of it only that which nourishes. This is not an absolute, of course, since the imbibing of poison will actually defile the body to such an extent as to make it ill or make it die. But how the food is served up does not alter its composition to that extent.
‘But those things that proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile a man.’
Well, this refers to belief and sincerity. If one’s belief and sincerity is mistaken or malevolent, it obviously will defile its target. But what if one’s belief and sincerity is pure and beneficent? Does that defile you? Again, we are not talking in absolutes. The matter is made clear in the next verse.
‘For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness and Blasphemies.’
Now what defiles is as clear as daylight. What about what does not defile?
‘These are the things which defile a man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.’
Again, what does not defile is as clear as daylight. Now this is the explanation of the PARABLE, given by Jesus himself. So why do Christians ignore it and give themselves licenses which were not ordained?
A response to this very simple and obvious explanation above is that one cannot pick and choose verses to their liking, but must use the entire dialogue or story to completely understand the message. So let us proceed to do that.
The verses from Mark 7 support, rather than undermine, what I said about the explanation in Matthew 15. Let's look at them a little closer. I have put in bold significant statements from which I make my analysis.
Then the Pharisees and certain of the Scribes, which came from Jerusalem, came together unto him. And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashed hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables.Then the Pharisees and Scribes asked him, ‘Why don't your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?’.
So, First of all we are given the context.
a) The disciples ate bread without washing their hands before eating.
b) The washing of hands is a Jewish Tradition taught by their elders - that is, the scholars of Judaism.
c) Other traditions of cleaning pots, pans, plates, cups and table surfaces, are of the same kind - Traditions taught by the Jewish scholars.
d) The learned men from the Pharisees ask, ‘Why don't your disciples follow (the Jewish) traditions of the (Jewish) elders?’
He answered and said unto them, 'Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, “These people honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men?”For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things you do.'
And he said unto them, 'Full well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.'
Please note carefully answer Jesus gives. Does he say, ‘You can lay aside the commandments of God!’? Indeed he does not. He likens the traditions named (such as washing pots and cups and other things) to “Doctrines of Men”, which they follow instead of the commandments God legislated that they had laid aside. Implicit in the statement is that they do wrong not only in following the traditions of men, but also in rejecting the commandments of God. This is in keeping with his earlier statement when he said, ‘Think not that I have come to destroy the Law, or the prophets. I have come not to destroy (them), but to fulfil (them).’
The question has got to be, then, are dietary laws also commandments? James seemed to think so, when he had this letter to the Gentiles written for the proselytizers, in The Acts:
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: That you abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. If you keep yourself from them, you will do well.
Pig is not mentioned there, nor camel or hare, all of which are mentioned as forbidden in Leviticus. However, pig is mentioned (along with these prohibitions) in the Quran, in Surat Al Ma'idah, as follows
Forbidden to you are carrion, blood, the flesh of pig, and that on which has been invoked a name other than God. (Also) that which has been killed by strangling, or stunning, or by a headlong fall, or savaged to death (by animals), or partly eaten (by those animals), unless you are able to slaughter it. (Also) that which is sacrificed on altars and the division (of meat) by raffling.
which indicates that the prohibition against eating pig has never been revoked or abrogated.
‘For Moses said, “Honour thy father and thy mother'; and, “Whoso curses father or mother, let him die the death.”But you say, “If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban”, that is to say, a gift, “by whatsoever you might be profited by me; he shall be free.”
And you suffer him no more to do aught for his father or his mother; making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which you have delivered: and many such like things do you.’
Now Jesus refers to the commandment to honour one's parents, and NOT take them for granted as if they OWED you what they have given you. This is like the Quranic commandment which says,
Be kind to your parents, whether one or both of them attain old age in your life. Say not a word to them of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honour. And, out of kindness, lower to them your wing of humility, and say, 'My Lord, bestow on them your mercy, even as they cherished me in childhood'.
Again Jesus says the falling away of the Jews into taking their parents for granted is taking tradition before the commandments of God.
And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, ‘Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: there is nothing from without a man that, entering into him, can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.If any man having ears to hear, let him hear.’
We have the telegraphed indication of a parable again, marked by that signal phrase in verse 16. So the parable needed to be explained,
And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.And he said unto them, ‘Are ye so without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatsoever thing from without enters into the man, it cannot defile him, because it enters not into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the draught, purging all meats?’
Purging the meat of what?
Well, to purge means, To make physically clean by removing all dirt and waste.
It also means “to make spiritually, or morally, pure, or ritually clean” ... but how do you make meat morally or ritually pure just by eating it?
Note, 'out into the draught' means by defecation or urination, that is; the physical filth that comes out of the man that, instead of defiling him, lets him clean out his insides. In the last part of the chapter, the filth that comes out of the heart (spiritual filth) has the result of defiling, rather the purging, a man.
This seems to be talking of the dirt on meat, put there by using unwashed utensils or unwashed hands, maybe. It reminds me of a narration reported by both Jábir and Anas from the Prophet who said,
If a morsel of food falls from any of you, he should pick it up, wipe of the (surface) dirt and then eat it. He should not leave it for Satan.
The Christian says, that that is precisely their point. The LORD Jesus said as much. It wouldn't matter if you ate wood shavings, THEY DON'T DEFILE YOU. It is the evil in ones own heart that defiles them. Hence the statement that what goes IN doesn't defile but what comes OUT. What good is it for a person to eat certain foods but still not love their neighbour as themselves? Jesus was trying to make this point to a generation of people that had lost touch with what GOD really wants from us. They were worshipping a SYSTEM and not HIM. For he said
‘That which comes out of the man that defiles the man; for from within, out of the heart of men, proceeds evil thoughts: adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and defile the man’.
However, I think they miss the point. The system that God is warning us against is the man invented system of religious habits which had become ritual, not the de-establishment of God's commands and rules of life. He is not saying, through His messenger 'ignore My commandments'. He is saying, 'do not take man made rituals as My commandments'.
So the message seems to be that lawful food has not the power to defile you. It does not say that “some foods that are defiled defile you because they are forbidden, but that any food, defiled or not by dirt form unwashed hands, or from non-adherence to man made commandments, would be purged of defilement by passage in the body anyway.” Rather than a license to eat anything, this seems to be a warning against ignoring the commandments listed in the verse, each of which is regarded as evil in thought.
These commandments are Not to
a) commit adultery
b) fornicate
c) murder
d) Steal
e) Covet (what another has)
These commandments are also broadened into principles, which discourage the people from
a) giving the evil eye
b) deceiving someone
c) blasphemy
d) pride
e) foolishness
f) lasciviousness (greed)
Conclusion
From this, and from Matthew 15, we understand that these verses do not constitute permission to ignore dietary Laws and the Commandments of God, but are, instead, a diatribe against the following of man-made doctrines, and an urging to follow God's Commandments in general, and permission, specifically, to ignore all the rituals of culinary hygiene introduced into the religion by the Jews as innovations.
Hence, this is not a specific abrogation against the prohibition of eating pork or meat sacrificed to deities other than God. But it does serve as an abrogation of the various cooking and cleaning rituals that had become established as religiously necessary with the cooking and eating of food.
Whatsoever the Soul Lusts After
The strangest defence I have met from a Christian is reference to the source of the prohibition itself as foreshadowing the lifting of that prohibition even in the time of Moses and the Torah. The implication made is that Deuteronomy 12 and 15 serve as a relaxation of the Laws detailed in Leviticus 11, and Deuteronomy 14, respectively, which were in force while the Tribes were wandering in the wilderness until they went over into the Promised Land. When they finally went over into the Promised Land was when they could eat whatsoever their souls lusted after, and that happened after the death of Moses. Also suggested is that the food that is sacrificed to the Lord is the forbidden food to eat, but that all other food became okay.
The claim seems a little strange to me, but it can nevertheless be effectively addressed from the very texts that are used to try and prove the thesis. The first lacuna in their theory is that the events of Deuteronomy 12 occurred well before the Israelites entered the Promised Land. Rather, they had camped beyond the River Jordan, well before they crossed it. They were still travelling, which is a possible reason for any relaxation to have taken place. Yet I will argue there was no relaxation, even so.
Moreover, once they were settled, just two chapters later, in Deuteronomy 14, the rules laid out in Leviticus are imposed in full force upon the people of Moses.
Deuteronomy 14 reproduces almost exactly, bar things strangled and the details about insects, what is said in Leviticus. So it is Deuteronomy 12 that is abrogated, if any abrogation takes place, not Leviticus 11. Furthermore, Leviticus does not deal with the wandering of the Israelites in the wilderness, but are the commandments laid upon them whilst they were settled around Mount Sinai during the two years they sojourned there in the land they had come into after the crossing of the Red Sea.
Let us begin by making a list of what Leviticus 11 forbade the Jews. It was permitted to eat any cloven footed animals that chew the cud. However, if an animal possessed one of the characteristics, but not the other, it was forbidden as food. The following are listed as forbidden.
1. a) The camel, the rabbit, the hare,
b) The swine are all forbidden.
The Torah specifies that the former type are forbidden because, though they chew the cud, they are not cloven footed, while the latter type are classed as unsuitable because, despite being cloven footed, they do not chew the cud.
2. Any animal without cloven feet and which does not chew the cud is forbidden.
3. Anything that swims, lives or moves in the sea or rivers is forbidden, except animals with scales and fins.
Fowls (birds) are not forbidden except: 4. a) those that ‘creep’, and
b) flesh eating birds.
Leviticus lists as forbidden: the eagle, the ossifrage, the osprey, the vulture, the kite, the raven, the owl, the night hawk, the great owl, the swan, the pelican, the geyer eagle, the stork, the heron, the lapwing and the bat (and their kind).
5. Animals that have paws and claws are forbidden as food (carnivores).
6. Creeping and flying insects are forbidden except those insects (with long back legs) that leap: Locusts, grasshoppers, and beetles are all permitted, but no other.
6. a) Many of the creeping things, are designated as unclean.
The following (and their kind) are listed in Leviticus: The weasel, the mouse, the tortoise, the ferret, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail, and the mole.
6. b) Anything multi-footed or that creeps upon its belly is forbidden.
7. Finally mentioned is any animal that dies of itself (i.e. carrion).
We will be looking at this list in more detail later, when we discuss the Islamic dietary rules.
If we ask whether Jesus ate pork, nearly all Christians will say that, while he was alive, he was under the Old Testament Law, because the prophecies concerning his death and its function (to remit believers of their sins) had not yet been fulfilled. Only with his death were the prophecies of the promised one fulfilled, thereby not changing the laws, but, rather, opening another door to go in and live by. So, through his death, people can ignore the rules forbidding certain types of food. To support this statement, some use this passage:
Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
I think the emphasis laid on 'latter times' by proponents of this theory of abrogation appears to want to infer that it refers to people from after Jesus including misled Christians, die-hard Jews and, particularly Muslims.
The implication preferred is that the ‘hypocrites’ herein mentioned are those who had chosen Islam as their religion. If that is the case, little do they know Islam; far from forbidding the pious to marry, Muslims are encouraged to celebrate marriage and produce Muslim offspring in great numbers.
Rather, it is various Christian sects, including the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, which encourage men and women to live cloistered lives, celibate and single in their devotion to the Christ.
As for abstaining from permitted food, it is the Catholic Church, among others, that insist that followers abstain from all meat on certain days of the week (such as Fridays) – substituting it with fish, or just vegetables and grains. They especially abstain whilst in a period of fasting, even during the hours they are allowed to eat a meal. So on both counts, if such an intention exists, the actuality is reflected on Christian, rather than Muslim, practicants.
The passage continues:
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
The words highlighted above are the crux of the arguments used, combined with several verses in Deuteronomy 12 and 15, to prove that any creature can be eaten. The two chapters in the Torah are supposed to prove that freedom from restriction is the Law handed down, and therefore that is what has not changed and what Jesus confirmed. Before going on to those arguments, however, I would like to examine more closely these two passages from 1 Timothy.
Some of the words highlighted are in the phrase ‘commanding to abstain from meats’. This translation is supposed to remind us of animals, but other translations render the word 'meats' as ‘foods’, and the word ‘commanding’, which is not in he original Greek, as ‘recommending’. That is, commanding or recommending people to fast from foods that are defined, by a relative clause. The definition is “foods that God created for partaking of with thanksgiving by the believers and those knowing the truth’. As for the elided word in the Greek sentence, the English translators insert ‘commanding’, as the carried verb from the previous sentence which says “forbidden to marry”.
In other words, if no word is inserted, the translation would read ‘forbidding to marry and to abstain from meats.” Does not that literally have the meaning of stopping people from fasting? Among the three religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, only one commands everyone to truly fast for more than one day in the year – actually a full month – and that is Islam.
What are the meats that God created for Christians and Jews to eat of which the hypocrites of the passage will either forbid or command to fast from? The Torah tells us that God said,
These are the animals which you shall eat: the ox, the flocked sheep, and the flocked goat, the hart and gazelle, and roebuck, and wild goat, and antelope, and oryx, and mouflon. And you may eat every animal that divides the hoof, and divides two hoofs wholly, and chews the cud among the animals.These you shall eat of all in the waters: you shall eat all that have fins and scales.
You shall eat of all clean birds.
Other words highlighted are in the phrases ‘every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving. Also the word sanctified, in the next sentence, choosing not to say what it is that is sanctified. The inference we are asked to make by the proponents of historical abrogation is that all creatures of God are good to eat, and clean. But we know that not to be true from Leviticus 1 and Deuteronomy 14. So what does he mean?
Well, every creature has his place and function, including permitted animals (to eat). God says:
They ask you what is lawful for them. Say: ‘Lawful to you are the fine things. And (from) those beasts of prey you employ as hounds, trained and taught to catch in the manner directed to you by God, eat of what they catch for you. But pronounce the name of God over it, and have awe of God. Verily, God is swift in reckoning.’
The wording in 1 Timothy 4, verses 4 and 5, however, is confusing. A verb or two seem to be missing. If it were to read as some wish it to be interpreted, then it should have been written “all creatures of God are good to eat, and no creature is to be refused if it is received with a prayer of thanksgiving.” Instead, their interpretation relies on emphasis being placed on the words if and thanksgiving, which is supposed to tell us that only thanking God is sufficient to make any food, whether clean or unclean, lawful to eat.
However, strategically placing the word ‘which’, removing ‘and’ and including a second needed verb (is) will help us make a more sensible interpretation. To wit: If verse 4 read “For every creature of God which is good is nothing to be refused”, the scripture suddenly becomes meaningful and the rest of the verses fit in.
In other words, in order for (even) lawful food to be accepted as ‘Kosher’, one should thank God for its provision and dedicate it’s eating to Him (by saying grace when you eat or slaughter it, and giving thanks when you finish eating). This is born out by the next verse, which says, “For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” This attitude reflects the attitude of the Muslim. For it is reported that the Messenger of God taught his step son, Umar bin abu Salamah saying:
“Mention God’s name, eat with your right hand, and eat from the part of the plate directly in front of you.”
He also taught us to say after eating:
“Praise be to God – Praise be in abundance! Good and Blessings be in it. It cannot be repaid, or left (aside), nor can it be done without, our Lord.”
Having made some commentary on the verses from 1 Timothy and shown where they are similar to Muslim practice, it is now time to examine how the concept of 'every animal being good to eat' fits into the two verses which are supposed to have abrogated the dietary Laws concerning the clean and unclean in the Torah even before they were properly put into effect. Arguing the case for the proponents of historical abrogation, it is said that the Law definitely was not changed by Jesus.
The whole chapter of Leviticus 11, where the prohibition against eating pork is to be found, is for the Israelites to make them Holy at that time, as God himself is Holy. In order to collect the promise God had made to their forefathers, they had to be obedient unto God, too. But when they came to the Promised Land, so it is argued, God gave them rest. He said:
When the Lord your God shall enlarge thy border, as he has promised you, and you shall say, I will eat flesh, because your soul longs to eat flesh; you may eat flesh, whatsoever your soul lusts after. If the place which the Lord your God has chosen to put his name there be too far from you, then you shall kill of your herd and of your flock, which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you, and you will eat in your gates whatsoever your soul lusts after. Even as the roebuck and the hart is eaten, so you shall eat them, the unclean and the clean shall eat of them alike. Only be sure that you eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and you may not eat the life with the flesh.
In another set of verses, He said:
You shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year in the place which the Lord shall choose, you and your household. And if there be any blemish therein, as if it be lame, or blind, or have any ill blemish, you shall not sacrifice it unto the Lord your God. You shall eat it within your gates: the unclean and the clean person shall eat it alike, as the roebuck, and as the hart. Only you shall not eat the blood thereof; thou shall pour it upon the ground as water.
So, it is argued, only eating the blood would be the abomination. In verse 22, Moses uses the Roebuck and the Hart just as an example of all unclean or clean meat. Therefore, is the conclusion, Christians can eat pork because it is not a sin.
The Laws were being obeyed in the wilderness, so the argument goes, but when they went over into the Promised Land; that is when they could eat what their souls lusted after, and that happened after the death of Moses. The Food that is sacrificed to the Lord is the forbidden food to eat. But all other food is okay. Besides this overt argument put forward is a covert one. The verses above contain the words “the Lord shall choose”. Would the proponents of historical abrogation like to portray 'the Lord' as Jesus Christ, and the 'shall' as referring to the time of his manifestation? It may be that they would also like to link the word “Lord” in these verses to the word “Word” in the verses from 1Timothy at the same time. If that is the case, God says:
O People of the Book! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of God (aught) save the truth. The Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, was (no more than) a messenger of God and His Word, whom he bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit from Him.
God is reminding especially the Christians, but also Jews and others, whose religions originate from His revealed message in their Scripture, that they have exceeded the limits set for them, and taken the licenses He gave too far. One such license played fast and lose with are in their dietary habits. Another is taking others as figures to worship beside God. He continues, in the same verse:
So believe in God and His messengers. Say not “three!” Cease! It is better for you. For God is the only One God, Glorified is He above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on the earth. And God is Self Sufficient as the Disposer of affairs.
Self-sufficiency means not being in need of a helper in Creation, nor in dispensing Mercy and Comfort. God is the Compassionate and Merciful.
“The word” in this verse does not mean the Lord Creator. Nor does the word “Lord” when addressed to Jesus necessarily mean Creator and Ultimate Judge. The truth is that the word “Lord” has different levels of meaning, and can be applied to men, not just to God. One of those levels of meaning is “the one whom we obey”. Since the ones using the title “Lord” in the Gospels were contemporaries of Jesus and since God orders us to obey His Messengers, there is nothing wrong in attributing such a reference to Jesus as such.
However, there should be no confusion in the matter. We obey the Messengers of God because they are Messengers who speak not of themselves, but what God wills. By obeying them, we are obeying God. But this does not make them gods. Nor can we confuse their “Lordship” with that of God, from whom every benefit stems, and on whom we depend for our very creation and continued existence.
One further point; the proponents that say the Israelites’ entry into the promised land demarcates the separation between dietary limitations being applied and being relaxed forget that all the chapters of the Torah were supposed to be written, or at least edited, by Moses long before the Children of Israel went into the Promised Land, which God had promised.
Moses was not allowed to go into the Promised Land. So how can one book be referring to a time after settling in the promised land, and another book be referring to a time that the tribes were still wandering. Surely it must be because one book is a prophecy, not an account of what really happened later? These points aside, let us now examine the verses for what they really say, rather than what the proponents of historical abrogation would like them to say.
Permitted and not permitted food
The two sets of verses chosen by the proponents of the theory that God already abrogated the dietary Laws immediately after the death of Moses are very similar. However, the phrase “whatsoever thy soul lusts after” in Deuteronomy 12, which is one of the lynchpins of their argument, is absent in the later passage (Deuteronomy 15), and therefore it is not viable using the latter as significant in abrogating Chapter 14.
The proponents of historical abrogation take “Whatsoever thy soul lusts after” to mean “any animal, even illegal animals, you want to eat”. However, if we diligently search through the rest of the Torah for these words in relation to meat, we find that God became angry when the Israelites lusted for meat instead of manna, and, in Numbers 11:34, He decimated them because of their lust, with a plague.
So to lust after something does not necessarily have good connotations, and may just be referring to what the people were allowed to eat after the supply of manna was suspended. Let us therefore look at the context, or definition, of exactly what one can “lust after”.
And you shall pay the silver for whatever your soul desires: for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for fermented drink, or for whatever your soul desires (i.e. from the permitted foods listed in verses 4-6, 9 & 11 in this chapter). And you shall eat there before the Lord your God; and you shall rejoice; you and your household.
Furthermore, just as confirmation, from whence can you lust after whatever your soul desires, God says,
You shall kill of your herd and of your flock, which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you, and you shall eat within your gates whatsoever your soul lusts after.
So, even if the phrase meant “any meat you lusted for”, the meat so indicated is defined as coming from “herd” and “flocks”.
Herd = a number of cattle of like kind kept together (cattle = bovine animals), or a number of wild (herbivorous) animals that stick together as they migrate for mutual protection. (Derived from herta).
Flock = a group of wool producing animals assembled and kept together or a group of (down producing) birds assembled together. (Derived from flocculus).
Both types of animal are “lawful” for eating in Deuteronomy 14 and Leviticus 11 - whichever you fancy. These proponents of misdirection also say that both sets of verses mention the hart and the roebuck, and associate them with the unclean and the clean. Again, the argument is very weak. Firstly, a quick, honest assessment of the sentences containing these words in Deuteronomy their discursive markers makes it obvious that the clean and unclean are not congruous with the two animals mentioned, but another object. Further more, this paired object interacts with the two animals by consuming them, but on certain conditions.
For instance, in Deuteronomy 12 it says, Even as the roebuck and the hart are eaten, so you shall eat them; the unclean and the clean shall eat of them alike.
“Them” in both the first and second clause, refers to something similar to (as) the two animals. The “unclean and the clean” are congruent with “you”. Compare that with
You shall eat it within your gates: the unclean and the clean person shall eat it alike, as the roebuck, and as the hart.
Again, “You” is congruent with “the unclean and the clean person”. The fact that the clean and unclean describe a person rules out any congruency with animals. “It”, however, is compared to each animal.
Secondly, neither animal is unclean, as can be seen from verse 5 of Deuteronomy 14, “These are the animals which you shall eat … the hart and gazelle, and roebuck, and wild goat, and …”, which lists the lawful animals the Israelites were permitted to eat.
And, if one cavils at accepting that “You” can refer to “the unclean” because God chose the Jews – and He would not choose anything unclean, you need but turn to the last two verses in Deuteronomy 14 for confirmation that “You” includes the stranger, who is “unclean” to the Jews:
At the end of three years, even the same year, you shall bring forth all the tithe of your increase, and shall lay it up within your gates. And the Levite, because he has no portion nor inheritance with you, and the alien, and the fatherless, and the widow who are within your gates shall come and shall eat and be satisfied; so that Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do.
So what about the conditions for eating “whatsoever your soul lusts after, as the hart and as the roebuck”?
In Deuteronomy 12, the condition is that the herd or flock owner is unable to get to the place “the Lord your God has chosen to put his name” because it is too far away. From this verse in Deuteronomy 15, “You shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year in the place which the Lord shall choose”, It can be deduced that this refers to the religious centre, the synagogue or temple or stone, where sacrifices can be officiated adequately. Sacrifices, remember, are limited to domesticated animals such as goats, sheep or oxen. Wild animals, like the hart and roebuck, are not suitable for sacrifice.
Nor are the domestic animals referred to in Deuteronomy 15 that are “lame, or blind, or have any ill blemish” suitable for Sacrifice. And only the pure can partake of the sacrifice.
Therefore the condition for anybody eating as one pleases boils down to the food eaten not being a sacrificial animal. Anybody can eat a permitted wild or blemished animal – whatsoever ones soul lusts for – even the impure alien, the non-Jew, because they are merely slaughtered, not sacrificed.
Finally, the suggestion is made through emphasizing the rule against eating blood (and the reference that it should be poured onto the ground), that sacrificial meat is forbidden. Well. that whole argument seems irrelevant, here. The blood is forbidden because the consumption of blood is forbidden by God, even for Christians, sacrificial or not. In this case, pouring it out on the ground like water indicates the animal is simply to be slaughtered, not sacrificed, because Jewish sacrifice involves collecting the blood and then spraying it on the congregation by Jewish tradition. And this is confirmed by the context – what is to be done if the owner of flocks or herds is unable to get to the place of sacrifice or only has blemished domestic animals. What is forbidden is the eating of that blood, not the animal from which it comes.
Conclusion
Thus this additional prong of the Christian defence for non-compliance to Divine commands concerning diet is comprehensively voided due to the incredible misreading of the texts cited. The only point that has any substance is from 1 Timothy, but it is totally unrelated to the texts chosen in the Torah, as we have seen. Therefore Whatsoever the Soul Lusts After does not infer free choice of whatever Christians would like to eat, but a choice limited by what God has legislated as fine things (good) and lawful (permitted).
What about Camel Meat!
Often a proselytizer whose proofs have not been sufficient to convince their audience of the veracity of their religion is to attack one or more of the tenets of the religion of their audience. The Christians and Jews have naturally picked up on the fact that Muslims eat camels, whilst the Torah says that camel meat is an unclean meat just as much as pork is. They ask if Muslims eat camel meat and, when they are answered in the affirmative, enquire why Muslims criticize Christians for breaking the Law by eating pork when the Muslims do the same thing by eating camel.
There is, of course, a big difference. The Christians have no textual proof of their assertion that they are free of God's restriction and ordinances, whereas the Muslims have a plethora of proofs.
I begin my defence in the Quran, where God has specifically told us we not only may eat camel meat, but should use the camel as a sacrificial animal. Restrictions on eating it, however, apply from the prophetic traditions. The first evidence that camel meat is permissible is indirect:
It is He Who produces gardens, with trellises and without, and dates, and tilth with produce of all kinds, and olives and pomegranates, similar (in kind) and different (in variety): eat of their fruit in their season, but render the dues that are proper on the day that the harvest is gathered. But waste not by excess: for God loves not the wasters.And of cattle (He created) beasts of burden and those which are fit for slaughter only; eat of what God hath provided for you, and follow not the footsteps of Satan: for he is to you and avowed enemy.
Say: "I do not find in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden for an eater to eat of except that it be what has died of itself, or blood poured forth, or flesh of swine - for that surely is unclean - or that which is a transgression, other than God having been invoked on it; but whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring nor exceeding the limit, then surely your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.
First of all, we are enjoined to eat what has been provided to us by God, which includes beasts of burden (camels), and then we are told specifically what is forbidden to eat – which does not include 'beasts of burden'.
Later on in the Quran, camels are specifically mentioned as being a fit (desired) animal not simply to eat, but also for sacrifice and to be fed to the poor.
And the camels! We have made them of the signs of the religion of God for you. Therein you have much good. So mention the name of God over them when they are drawn up in lines. Then when they fall on their flanks (dead), eat thereof and feed such as (beg not but) live in contentment, and such as beg with due humility. Thus have We made them subject unto you, that you may be grateful.It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches God: it is your piety that reaches Him: He has thus made them subject to you, that you may glorify God for His Guidance to you and proclaim the good news to all who do right.
The restrictions on the Jews, even concerning meat consumption in some cases, they brought upon themselves (due to their obstinate disobedience). So some restrictions are for them alone.
For those who followed 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 mixed up with a bone: this in recompense for their wilful disobedience: for verily We are Truthful.
Given that the Quran makes the eating of camel meat legal, and God’s rules never change, perhaps the presence of the law against its consumption was brought upon the Jews by themselves or added to the law on their own authority. The possibility of the latter I would like to examine from reference to the text itself in Leviticus. For instance, is the classification of the camel as not having a split hoof correct? If it is, then the text which says such must be man altered, as God makes no mistakes.
Clean and Unclean Food
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "Say to the Israelites: 'Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud.'" There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them.The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you.
This first criterion is questionable. The definition which defines the type of animal a camel is follows:
TYLOPODA (Gr. for boss-footed, in reference to the cushion-like pads forming the soles of the feet), the scientific name of the section of ruminating artiodactyle ungulate mammals (see ARTIODACTYLA) now represented by the Old World camels (see CAMEL) and the South American Llamas (see LLAMA) The limbs are long, but with only two digits (the third and fourth) developed on each, no traces of any of the others being present. The trapezoid and magnum of the carpus, and the cuboid and navicular of the tarsus are distinct. The two cannon-bones of each limb are confluent for the greater part of their length, though separated for a considerable distance at the lower end. Their lower articular surfaces, instead of being pulley-like, with deep ridges and grooves, as in other Artiodactyla, are simple, rounded and smooth. The first phalanges are expanded at their lower ends, and the wide, depressed middle phalanges embedded in a broad cutaneous pad, forming the sole of the foot, on which the animal rests in walking instead of on the hoofs. The terminal phalanges are small and nodular, not flattened on their inner or opposed surfaces, and not completely encased in hoofs, but bearing nails on their upper surface only.
The second criterion is clear, however, and the biological dictionary supports the assertion.
The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.
Co´ny Noun 1. cony - any of several small ungulate mammals of Africa and Asia with rodent-like incisors and feet with hoof-like toes das, dassie, hyrax, coney Procavia capensis, rock hyrax, rock rabbit – a hyrax that lives in rocky areas.family Procaviidae, Procaviidae - includes all recent members of the order Hyracoidea.
The third criterion needs no further investigation, as it is agreed in the both Judaism and Islam.
And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
If this examination of the text satisfactorily casts doubt as to its authenticity as God’s word, are there any grounds in Islamic law that indicate that camel meat is impure in any way, needing ritual purification of the meat before a person can eat it, or purification of the person after he or she has eaten it? If so, it may have provided a causal basis for Jacob’s descendents to have classified it as impure for consumption.
In Islam, purity is imparted upon consumables by pronouncing God’s name over it, and the meat of an animal becomes pure if you kill it, either by slaughtering or hunting, in the name of Allah. So if the meat was impure in itself, merely killing it according to the Law would purify it.
Therefore, if any restriction on eating it exists, it should be of the latter type. In other words, any restriction pertaining to camel meat concerns whether or not eating it breaks one's state of ritual purity, and therefore obligating the renewal of ablution.
Concerning this question, there are several Legal religious verdicts, and the following information is derived from a reliable internet site. The question asked was because the Muslim questioner wanted to be sure he was not breaking any of God’s laws in his dietary habits
Does eating camel meat break ritual purity?
According to the Islamic questions and answers site, the most correct view is that when one eats camel meat, whatever the sex or age of the camel or whether or not it is cooked or raw, one has to make ablution after doing so. The evidence used to support this opinion is from several reports from the companions of the prophet about what he taught. The first is the following, from Jábir:
The Prophet was asked, ‘Should I make ablution after eating camel meat?’ He said, ‘Yes.’The person said: “Should I make ablution after eating mutton?” He said, ‘If you wish.’
Another companion, Al-Bará’, reported also that the Messenger of God was asked about eating camel meat
He said, ‘Make ablution after eating it.’
When he was asked about mutton, and he said, ‘Do not make ablution.’
These two sayings make it clear that ablution after eating camel meat is obligatory, but is not necessary after eating mutton or lamb.
[However, there is a contrary view, which considers ablution to be necessary only if the meat is not cooked, and extends to other uncooked meats, too. They also base their opinions on what the companions narrated.
They consider the rule to be abrogated by a narration from Jábir, who said that the last of the two commands from the Messenger of God was:
‘There was no need to make ablution after eating food that had been touched by fire.’
Their argument is that the first two reports applied still applied only to uncooked meat, but once it is cooked, any meat that required ablution after eating it, is voided. However, there is no evidence in this narration that the ‘food’ mentioned here includes camel meat, which is specifically indicated as needing ablution, or is in general reference to a practice that had developed without specific direction for any food, meat or otherwise. The proponents of the correct view put forward what seems to me to be a spurious argument, saying that this narration does not refute the specific meaning of the authentic one quoted above from Muslim, nor did it abrogate anything from it because, when they asked whether they should make ablution after eating mutton, and the Messenger of God had said, ‘If you wish.’
They also argue that if the Muslim narration was abrogated, the ruling on mutton would also be abrogated. I cannot quite see any problem with either of these positions, for the wording of the Abu Dawúd narration implies that even if the earlier ruling still applied to meat that is eaten without being cooked, the later ruling abrogated what concerned cooked food.
The people who stick by the earlier ruling argue that “If you wish” indicates that their narrations must have come after the narration of Jábir, concluding that in cases of abrogation there must be evidence that what is being abrogated came first chronologically. Why exactly the saying “if you wish” makes the Muslim narration follow the Abu Dawúd one, I am at loss to say. For despite the fact they see no evidence here that the Abu Dawúd succeeds the Muslim narration, that evidence is supplied by the former narration itself.
First of all, one of the narrators of the first two reports in Muslim and Termidhi is the same person who reported the ‘abrogating’ narration of Abu Dawúd.
Secondly, this narrator, Jábir, says about the latter that it was the second of his two last commands, which necessitates the Muslim and Termidhi narrations being before it.
Never the less, the Abu Dawúd narration is general in application, but the Muslim and Termidhi narrations about camel meat are more specific. According to matters of Law, a specific ruling takes precedence over a general one. Therefore, camel meat is excluded from the general ruling, which applies to other lawful meat. The fact that in the Muslim narration the person also asked about mutton makes it clear that the issue here is not whether the meat has been touched by fire for, if that were the case, then camel meat and mutton would be regarded in the same way.
Some people are inclined to argue that there was no clear order to purify oneself after eating camel meat in the first place. They say that what is meant by the phrase “make ablution after eating it” in the Muslim narration is to wash the hands and mouth, because camel meat has an unpleasant odour and is very greasy, unlike mutton.
This interpretation is unlikely, because the apparent meaning here is ablution as prescribed in Law, not just in the linguistic sense of merely washing one's hands and mouth. When the terminology of Law is used, it is obligatory to interpret it in accordance with the meanings of Law.
The opinion that camel meat needs no purification before or after eating it is also pressed by a group of people using three very shaky pieces of evidence. The first is a narration which is classed as weak by al-Bayhaqi and al-Dáraqutni due to three faults in the chain of narration. In it, it is reported that the Messenger of God said,
‘Ablution has to do with what comes out, not what goes in.’
Some of them also take as evidence a story that has no basis in any authentic narrations or elsewhere in reliable books of explanation and practice. The story in question may be summed up as follows:
The Prophet was addressing the people one day, and one of them emitted an odour (i.e., passed wind), but he felt too shy to get up from among the people. He had also eaten camel meat, so the Messenger of God said, covering for him,‘Whoever has eaten camel meat, let him make ablution.’
So a group of people who had eaten camel meat got up and went and performed ablution.
Therefore the opinion of Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid regarding this matter is that the ruling on not performing ablution after eating anything that has been touched by fire has been abrogated, but it is obligatory to make ablution after eating camel meat.
According to Al-Nawawi, The view of the following historical scholars is that ablution is necessary after eating camel meat, whether raw or cooked: Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Isháq ibn Ráhawayh, Yahyá ibn Yahyá, Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Khuzaymah. Al-Háfiz Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi was also of the opinion that eating camel meat breaks ritual purity. Among modern scholars, Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azîz ibn Báz, Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymîn and Shaykh al-Albáni also said this.
However, it has to be said that the majority responded to this with the authentic narration of Jábir which reports that the last of the two commands from the Messenger of God was that there was no need to make ablution after eating meat that had been touched by fire, the merits of which we discussed earlier. If the opinion that Camel meat breaks ritual purity is true, it may have been the basis of including it among the prohibited meats in the Laws of the Israelites. If it is false, then its inclusion in the Law of Moses seems perverse.]
Conclusion
So the issue of camel meat being fine things (good and legal) is moot, in Islam. We take the view that is permissible to us from the explicit evidence in the Quran and Authentic narrations from the companions of the Prophet, but, if it was forbidden for the Children of Israel, as the evidence in Leviticus suggests it was, it was made forbidden for them due to their rebellion and wilful disobedience, as stated in Quran, 6:146.
Dietary Law in Islam
This article is not a legal verdict on what is lawful and forbidden to eat in Islam. It is a collection verses from the Quran and of authentic narrations on the subject, interspersed with legal verdicts and opinions from Muslim scholars. Where I myself express an opinion contrary to the majority, it is a personal opinion that has no legal standing, and should not be taken as such.
Taking into account the above disclaimer, the broad categories of what is legal and good to eat and what is forbidden is laid out in Quran, 5:4, as I mentioned earlier.
God also makes lawful the food of the Christians and the Jews (as long as it does not contravene a primary regulation): He says:
Made lawful to you this day are the fine things. The food of the People of the Scripture is lawful to you, and your food is lawful to them.
Even if you are not certain the food has been slaughtered in God’s name or not, it is still lawful to eat, being made so by uttering what a non-Muslim might term as “grace”.
It is reported that The Messenger of God taught his step son, Umar bin abu Salamah, saying:
‘Mention God’s name, eat with your right hand, and eat from the part of the plate directly in front of you.’
A’isha said:
They asked, ‘O messenger of God! Some recently converted people from disbelief have brought us some meats, and we do not know if the name of God has been mentioned over them or not.’
He said, ‘Mention God’s name on it and eat from it!’
Even unlawful food is allowed, with the mention of God’s name, if you are in dire need and there is no other provision to be had. God says:
But as for him who is forced by severe hunger, with no inclination to sin, he can eat of these (forbidden) categories. Then surely, God is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.
The categories referred to are mentioned clearly in other parts of the Quran:
Lawful to you are all beasts of cattle (and game) except that which will be announced to you herein. Forbidden for you is carrion, blood, and the flesh of swine, or that which has been slaughtered as a sacrifice to other than God. Also forbidden are animals which are killed by strangulation, a violent blow, a headlong fall, or the goring of horns. That which has been partly eaten by wild animals is also forbidden – unless you are able to slaughter it before it dies. And that which is sacrificed on stone altars.
However, we are told to beware.
God says:
Do not eat of that which God's Name has not been pronounced, for it is surely disobedience. Verily the devils inspire their friends to dispute with you, and if you obey them, then you would indeed be polytheists.
Derived from the preceding we get just one species of animal forbidden in the Quran itself by name: swine.
All other prohibitions concern the manner of death (except blood). Animals ‘gored’ to death include animals killed by carnivores, unless they are tamed hunting animals released on God’s word.
God makes no restrictions on sea food. He says, Lawful to you is the pursuit of water game and its use for food.
and
It is He Who has made the sea subject to you, that ye may eat thereof flesh that is fresh and tender, and that you may extract there-from ornaments to wear; and you see the ships therein that plough the waves, that you may seek (thus) of the bounty of God and that ye may be grateful.
and
The two seas are not alike. This is palatable, sweet and pleasant to drink, while that is salt and bitter. And from them both you eat fresh, tender meat and derive the ornaments you wear. And you see the ships cleaving, that you may seek of His Bounty, and that you may give thanks.
Other restrictions are known that tally with some of the restrictions in the Torah; those of forbidding the eating of frogs, donkeys, and raptors and carnivorous land animals, for example. All these prohibitions are known through authentic narrations from the companions of the Prophet. Three short narrations are in Muslim: Jábir bin Abdullah narrated:
On the day of Khaybar, The Messenger of God forbade the eating of donkey’s meat, but permitted the eating horse meat.Generally speaking, Muslims will include in this prohibition not eating any ‘fanged animal’, including snakes or animal ‘with tusks’, to be on the safe side, and most Muslims include all amphibians in the prohibition against frogs – though this is not a consensus of opinion.Ibn 'Abbas narrated: The Messenger of God prohibited eating any bird which had talons or any animal with canine teeth.
'Abdur-Rahman bin 'Uthman al Qurayshi narrated: A physician consulted he Messenger of God about extracting medicine from frogs, so he so he prohibited killing them.
If we list what is included above, Muslims are forbidden:
1. Swine,
2. Donkeys,
3. Carnivorous land mammals. According to the majority opinion, other land animals, including reptiles, with tusks or fangs, such as elephants, hippos, crocodiles and snakes, fall under this category
4. Raptors.
5. Frogs (and, according to some, other amphibians)
Also forbidden is the following:
6. Blood,
7. Carrion meat,
8. Animals specifically slaughtered on stone altars and in the name of pagan deities,
9. Animals killed by stunning or strangulation (before the blood has flowed out of them).
Any of the above can be eaten if there is dire need, and the name of God is mentioned before eating. The verses above are backed up by explanatory narrations. For instance, we know that sea mammals, living wholly within the sea, are acceptable because of an authentic narration about a stranded whale, and this confirms that sea food is allowed even if it does not have gills, fins and scales.
Abu Zubair, narrated: Jábir reported: ‘Messenger of God sent troops to capture a caravan of the Quraysh and appointed Abu 'Ubaida as their chief, and they were 300 men. Our journey food was dates, and Abu 'Ubaida kept on giving us our daily ration from it little by little until the supply had got so low that he was giving us but one date each per day.’The significance of this narration is that the Prophet was not in need when he ate of the creature's meat, which proves that if a sea creature dies of itself, without being slaughtered, we can eat from it even if it is a mammal.I said: ‘What did you do with it?’
He said: ‘We sucked the date just as a baby sucks and then drank water after that, and it sufficed us until night. We would then beat tree branches with the help of our staffs, and soak the fallen leaves with water, and then eat them.
Then we reached the sea coast, where we found a fish like creature the size of a small mountain. It was a spermaceti whale. Abu 'Ubaida said. “It is dead.”
Then he said: “No, we have been sent by the Messenger of God and we are out in the cause of God, and are hard pressed for food, so we should eat it.” We were three hundred in number, and stayed there for a month, until we grew bulky. I saw how we extracted pitcher after pitcher full of fat from the cavity of its eye and sliced from it compact pieces of meat equal to a bull or like a bull. Abu 'Ubaida called for thirteen volunteers from us and he made them sit in the cavity of its eye, and he took one of the ribs of its chest and fixed it (in the sand, like an arch), and a camel rider passed under it (without touching). And we provided ourselves with pieces of boiled meat.’
Jábir continued: ‘When we returned to Medina, we informed Messenger of God about it (what we had done). He said: “That was a provision which God had brought forth for you, so give us some if you have any (meat) left.”’
Jábir said: ‘Some of us gave Messenger of God some of its meat and he ate it.’
Another authentic narration explains the part of the verse about hunting, and using hounds to hunt.
'Adi bin Hatim reported the following: I asked the Messenger of God about the game hunted with a Mi‘rad .He said, ‘If the game is killed with its sharp edge, you can eat of it, but if it is killed by its broad side (shaft), you cannot eat of it, for then it is like an animal beaten to death with a club.’
said, ‘O Messenger of God! I let loose my hound after a game and mention God's Name on sending it.’
the Messenger of God said, ‘If the hound catches and kills the game for you, then eat from it, for killing the game by hound is like slaughtering it. But if you let loose your hound after a game, and you mention God's Name on sending it, but the hound then eats of it, then it is not lawful to eat of it, for it has killed it for itself.’
I said, ‘Sometimes when I send my hound after a game, I find another hound along with it and I do not know which of them has caught the game.’
He said, ‘You must not eat of it because you have not mentioned, the Name of God except on sending your own hound, and you did not mention it on the other hound.’
Some people have a problem reconciling what Muslims are allowed to eat with what the Jews were prohibited from eating, such as lizards, rabbits, sea mammals and shellfish. These are allowed by specific authentic narrations. For example, we know that it is permissible to eat camel, rabbit and lizard, because the first is mentioned as recommended for sacrifice in the Quran, and the latter two endorsed as legal in the Prophetic traditions. Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
The Prophet said, ‘I do not eat Sand Lizard, but I do not prohibit its eating.’
Once we provoked a rabbit at Marr-az-Zahran till it started jumping. The people chased it till they were exhausted. Then I overpowered it and caught it and brought it to Abu Talha, who slaughtered it and then sent both its thighs to the Prophet and the Prophet accepted it. When asked if the Prophet ate from it Anas confirmed: ‘He ate from it.’Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Other narrations make legal what is made legal in the Torah and prohibits a thing that which is prohibited therein. Narrated ibn Abî Aufa:
We participated with the Prophet in six or seven military expeditions and we used to eat locusts with him.
Ibn 'Abbas narrated:
‘The Messenger of God prohibited the killing of four creatures; ants, bees, hoopoes and shrikes.’
Having dealt with the prohibited, or forbidden, we can now turn to that which is permitted. There are five categories of food that are permitted.
1. Slaughtered with the name of God Bovine Cattle, such as cows, oxen, buffalo Artiodactyle Cattle, such as camels, llamas Ovine or Caprine Cattle such as sheep, goats Equine Cattle, such as domesticated horses (but not donkeys)
Herbivorous game of the ground or (Seed eating) Birds of the air, which are neither scavengers nor raptors
2. Not slaughtered, but eaten with the name of God mentioned All sorts of river and seafood that live wholly within the water Locusts; this category may include grasshoppers, as they are of the same species.
3. Slaughtered by the people of the Book All the animals above, mentioning God's name before you eat, except if you are sure that it was slaughtered in the name of idols.
4. Slaughtered by non-Muslims who are not from the category 3, above It is better avoided.
If you are not sure who slaughtered it, one of the opinions of scholars, and perhaps it is the majority opinion from the schools of thought, is that it is forbidden. However, I am not satisfied by the proofs, based upon the narration quoted earlier from A’isha in Bukhári, when she asked about some new Muslims bringing with them meat. It is not mentioned whether the new Muslims were from the Christians, Jews or the Arab idolaters. If they were the latter, perhaps all those animals that are mentioned in the first category, so long as you are sure they have not been slaughtered in the name of idols are permitted, God willing, on the obligatory condition that you mention God's name on the food before you eat it.
5. Forbidden food
Only in dire need, and as much as is necessary to survive, mentioning God's name before eating.
Living among non-Muslims
If a Muslim is part of a minority living in the lands where people of the Book or idolaters are the rulers, it is better, and safer, to eat food from Muslim butchers if it is available, or slaughter it themselves. It is also preferred to eat out of tableware belonging to Muslims.
Conclusion
The Muslim Dietary Laws are based on the principle that anything not specifically forbidden in the Prophetic traditions or the Quran is permitted. As such, they are very practical Laws with built in leeway. In fact, a narration tells us: Abdullah Ibn 'Abbas narrated:
The people of pre-Islamic times used to eat some things and leave others alone, considering them unclean. Then God sent His Prophet and sent down His Book, marking some things lawful and others unlawful; so what He made lawful is lawful, what he made unlawful is unlawful, and what he said nothing about is allowable.And he recited: ‘Say: I find not in that which has been inspired to me any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it....’ up to the end of the verse.
And the Quran says,
All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, except what Israel made unlawful for himself, before the Torah was revealed.
And
Say: ‘I find not in that which has been inspired to me anything forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, except … .’
They dispense with the earlier rulings in the Torah and Gospel, providing a simplified code to follow. This code releases you from the self imposed restrictions the Jews made for themselves in slavishly following their elders to the expense of the Criterion given to Moses, which is the Torah. And they put no hardship upon you. Adopting them will bring you one step closer to God, and strict monotheism, for, in Hadiyth Qudsi, God tells us directly:
I am as My servant thinks of Me. I am with him when he makes mention of Me. If he makes mention of Me to himself, I make mention of him to Myself; and if he makes mention of Me in an assembly, I make mention of him in an assembly even better than that. And if he takes one step towards Me, I take ten steps towards him. And if he comes walking to Me, I go running towards him.
So why not take the first step, and turn back towards Him by eating according to His command?
Jesus was Sent to Re-establish the Letter and Spirit of The Law in our Hearts
God reports Jesus as saying,
I have come confirming that which has come before me of the Torah, and to make lawful part of which was forbidden to you, and I have come with a proof from your Lord. So fear God, and obey me!
Furthermore, Jesus says, in the Gospel of St. Matthew
Do not think that I came to annul the Law or the Prophets? I did not come to annul, but to fulfil! Truly I say to you, ‘Until the heaven and the earth pass away, in no way shall one iota or one point pass away from the Law until all comes to pass.’ Therefore, whoever relaxes one of these commandments in the least, and shall teach (other) men (to do) so, he shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever does and teaches them, that one shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.For I say to you, ‘If your righteousness shall not exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of God,’ never!
But not only this, but a short passage in the Gospel tells you what Jesus said is needed to enter the Kingdom of heaven.
And he, having gone out into the highway, behold! Running up, coming near, and kneeling down to him, one certain ruler asked him, saying, ‘Good Teacher, what good things may I do to inherit eternal life?’But Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except One: God! But if you desire to enter into life, keep the commandments.’
He said to him, ‘Which?’
And Jesus said, ‘Do not commit adultery, or commit murder, or steal, nor bear false witness. Do not defraud, but honour your father and mother, and love your neighbour as yourself.’
How do these compare with the Torah commandments?
Honour your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that your days may be prolonged, and so that it may be well with you in the land which the Lord your God is giving to you. You shall not commit murder. And you shall not commit adultery. And you shall not steal. And you shall not testify a witness of falsehood (bear false witness) against your neighbour.
And
You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people; but you shall love your neighbour as yourself.
So Jesus is saying that the letter of the Law is required in order for you to enter eternal life. But is 'the letter of the Law' enough? No, indeed! When asked if anything is required beyond the letter, by this same man, Jesus replied:
Yet one thing is lacking to you. If you desire to be perfect, go, sell as much property as you have, and give to the poor. And you will have treasure in Heaven. And come, follow me.
The man's reaction showed a serious lack of faith, for Having heard these things he became very sad at the word, and the young man went away grieving; for he had many possessions and was exceedingly rich.
His heart was not in it, especially the part about neighbourliness and charity.
About such the Quran stipulates that piety, after belief and fulfilling what God ordains in terms of practice, must include :
Expending ones wealth, in spite of ones love for it, on kinsfolk, the orphans, the poor (who beg not), the wayfarer (the travelling stranger), the beggar (in need), and (justly) on slaves.
And Jesus obliquely refers to this when he said to his disciples,
Truly I say to you, 'Those having riches shall only with great difficulty enter into the Kingdom of Heaven!' And again I say to you, 'For it is easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God'.
The same oblique reference is made by God, in the Quran,
To those who reject Our verses and treat them with arrogance, no opening will there be of the gates of heaven, nor will they enter the garden, until the camel can pass through the eye of the needle: Such is Our reward for those in sin.
Arrogance is the characteristic of the opulently rich, like Kor’ah. God says of him,
Indeed, Kor’ah was of Moses’ people, but he behaved arrogantly towards them. We gave him of Our treasures that of which the keys would have been a burden to a group of strong men. When his people said to him: ‘Do not exult! God dislikes those who exult. Seek, rather, with that which God bestowed on you, the home of the Hereafter. And do good, as God has done good to you, seeking not mischief in the land. Verily, God dislikes the corrupters.’He said, ‘This has been given to me only because of the knowledge I have.’
Those who were desirous of worldly life said, ‘Ahhh, that we might have the like of what Kor’ah has been given. He is, indeed, the owner of great fortune!’
But those with true knowledge said, ‘Woe to you (all)! The reward with God is better for the believers and doer of good deeds, and none will attain (it) except the meek.’
Therefore, if heaven is your objective, the Torah serves as a guideline for the manifestation of piety and belief. If you don't apply the letter of the Law hypocritically to your lives, it should, at least, be reflected in your actions, including the dietary laws stipulated by God, if you are true believers.
Hypocrisy would see you giving lip-service for the sake of others to see, but belief would be reflected in your whole character, and therefore your deeds.
When the Sadducees (who believe that life terminates in the here and now, and any reward/punishment is reflected in our worldly life rather than in the Hereafter) questioned him about a theoretical case where a woman went through several husbands before dying herself (unwed), Jesus replies,
Concerning the dead, that they are raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, as God spoke to him at the Bush, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead, but God of the living. Therefore, you greatly err.Reminding them of this verse:
And He said, 'I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' And Moses hid his face, for he feared to look upon God.
That is, even generations after Abraham, his sons and their sons, God acted to re-establish the Children of Israel in Canaan. So, even after the generations since Moses and the further generations since David and Solomon God was still acting for the living, and the living were accountable to Him. The Hereafter was, and is, a reality we must all work for – not the mere recognition and admiration of our peers.
This reminder was given shortly before the Pharisee scribes, appreciating his confounding reply to the Sadducees, put a testing question to him themselves.
‘O Master! Which is the first, great commandment?’ And Jesus answered him, ‘The first of all the commandments is: "Hear, Israel. The Lord our God is one Lord, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength." This is the first, and great, commandment.And the second is like this, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." There is not another commandment greater than these. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.’
And the scribe said to him, ‘You say well, Teacher. You have spoken according to truth, that God is one, and there is no other besides Him; and to love Him from all the heart, and from all the understanding, and from all the soul, and from all the strength; and to love one's neighbour as oneself is more than all the burnt offerings and the sacrifices.’
And seeing that he answered intelligently, Jesus said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’
Though the question was framed so that the first of the Ten Commandments could have been the reply elicited, Jesus chose to go to the heart of the matter. It is not enough just to refrain from worshipping false gods and graven images – one must love and worship, with true sincerity, the One God. This is truly the greater concept. Is he abrogating the Ten Commandments? No, indeed! For the Law is not just the Ten Commandments, but the statutes in the whole of the Torah, which include:
Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. And these Words which I am commanding you today shall be on your heart.To you it was revealed, so that you might know that the Lord is God, and no one else besides Him.
You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people; but you shall love your neighbour as yourself; I am the Lord.
(And also: the prohibition of pork, among other dietary prohibitions)
Those who believe that Paul abrogated this directive from revelation after Jesus's ascension should think again. In a letter to his erstwhile pupil, Timothy, he wrote;
The end of the commandment is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience, and faith not pretended, from which, having missed the mark, some turned aside to empty talking, wishing to be teachers of Law, neither understanding what they say, nor about that which they confidently affirm. And we know that the Law is good, if anyone uses it lawfully. Knowing this, that Law is not laid down for a righteous one, but for lawless and undisciplined ones, for ungodly and sinful ones, for unholy and profane ones, for slayers of fathers and slayers of mothers, for murderers, for fornicators, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and any other thing that opposes sound doctrine, according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I was entrusted.
If you look at Christianity today, what is the attitude towards publicity, dating and sex before marriage, homosexuality, exploitation, drinking, extra-marital sex, and the like, in the name of Democracy and Capitalism? What is the state of belief in God, and in the Hereafter? Does it not point to a dire need to go back to a Law laid down; a Law that calls upon the believer to act sincerely?
Writing to the Romans, Paul says,
Owe no man anything, except to love one another. For the one loving the other has fulfilled the Law. For, 'do not commit adultery, nor murder, nor steal, nor bear false witness, nor lust,' and if there is any other commandment, in this Word it is summed up, in the words, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ Love does not work evil to the neighbour. Then Love is the fulfilment of Law.
So, if loving is the fulfilment of the Law, the visible manifestation of Love is seen in sincere obedience to the Law.
Jesus is supposed to have said, in the early part of his ministry, according to St. John,
Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one accusing you, Moses, in whom you have hoped. For if you believed Moses, you would then believe me; for that one wrote concerning me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my Words?
And, according to St. Luke, he later affirmed just before his ascension,
These are the Words which I spoke to you yet being with you, that all the things must be fulfilled having been written in the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms.
About the (formerly) Christian, and Jewish, believer, God says,
You will find the nearest in Love to the believers those who say, 'we are Christians.' That is because, among them, there are priests and monks who are not proud; and they listen to what has been sent down to the Messenger. You see their eyes overflowing with tears because of the Truth they have recognized. They say, ‘Our Lord! We believe; so write us down among the witnesses! And why should we not believe in God and in what has come to us of the Truth? And we wish for our Lord to admit us (into Paradise) along with the upright people.’Because of what they have said, God has rewarded them Gardens under which rivers flow, and they will abide therein forever. Such is the reward of the God Conscious.
and
Those to whom we gave the Book before it (the Quran) believe in it. And when it is recited to them, they say, ‘We believe in it! Verily, all of it is the Truth from our Lord. Indeed, even before it we have been Muslims.’
These have been given their reward twice over, because they are meek (patient), and repel evil with good, and expend what we have provided them (in charity). And when they hear rigmarole, they withdraw from it, and say, ‘To us our deeds, and to you, your deeds. Peace be unto you; we seek not the ignorant.’
Verily, you guide not whom you like, but God guides whom he wills. And He knows best whom are (to be) guided.
This last admonition, addressed to Muhammad at the time of revelation, is now addressed to us, the proselytizers of Islam, and the ordinary Muslims, telling us that it is not we who guide you. From inside you, somewhere, must come the spark; the initial urge to know God, the One True God, and be guided; not only the desire, but the active impulse to seek. I earlier gave you a Hadiyth Qudsi, which told you that
‘If you take one step towards God, He takes ten steps towards you. And if you come walking to Him, He goes running towards you.’
You have to take that initial step.
It is better for you, then, to look at the Prophetic traditions and Quran for guidance in this matter because God will reward you twice over for your observance of the Law of the previous Book and then your submission to the Law in the Final Book. There is a narration narrated Abu Hurrayrah, addressed directly to the People of the Book, which says:
The Messenger of God said, ‘By Him in Whose hand Muhammad's soul rests, there is none from amongst the Christians and the Jews who hears about me, and then dies without believing in the Message with which I have been sent, but he will be from among the dwellers of the Fire.’
The question, then, is why do Christians allow for themselves that which God (God) has forbidden? Is their heart really with God so that they comply through the Spirit of the Law to its Letter?
Ask yourselves, ‘Where is the Letter and Spirit of God's Law perfectly combined?’ I think you will recognize that only one religion provides the perfect balance of social justice, sincere belief in One Ilah (God), and true awe and love of God (Allah): Islam. God said, within the main verses that prescribe the lawful and unlawful:
Today I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour on you, and chosen for you Islam as your religion.
Is it not time you take for your religion that which God has chosen for you? You will never make a wiser decision.
May God guide me and make my efforts bear fruit. Any mistakes or errors herein are from myself and any benefit and guidance is from God.