| Author | Topic |
oosman
USA
|
 Posted - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 7:10 PM 
| Using your logic of 'natural' things, what do you say about oysters. Would it be ok to eat them? |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 10:01 AM
I am posting excerpts from a dialogue here at one of the forums.
Haroon: If every human being has this universal sense, then why did the Roman and Greek civilizations, which spanned centuries, not forbid homosexuality. Also, East Asian cultures, comprising nearly 1/5th of humanity's total current population, do not find eating of dogs abhorrent. How do these examples connect with an internal register that is supposed to be universal?
Jhangeer Hanif: 'Innate guidance' should also be understood in the perspective of inheritance (legacy). Adam (sws) received this guidance directly from Allah, and which kept transferring, through his progeny, from one generation to the next. Thus, learning from parents, family and society as a whole can be traced back to the first couple, Adam (sws) and Eve (sws). Your individual sense of right and wrong is not isolated from your society; but it does not mean you are completely dependant on your society since you also have the divine spark within your soul as it was instilled within the first couple.
Ayesha: A quote from the book ‘The Road Less Travelled’ by M. Scott Peck may explain the phenomenon of innate guidance being transmitted to generations of humans through genetic transfer.
“But what is its source, this part of us that is wiser than we are? We do not know. Jung's theory of the collective unconscious suggests that our wisdom is inherited. Recent scientific experiments with genetic material in conjunction with the phenomenon of memory suggests that it is indeed possible to inherit knowledge, which is stored in the form of nucleic acid codes within cells..........”
AminahStar: In the case of eating unappealing items, I don’t think our innate guidance helps us distinguish right from wrong, and so we must rely on revealed guidance.
Jhangeer Hanif: If we have to rely on revealed guidance in matters of food, why do we not find an exhaustive list of the forbidden and allowed items? Why does the Holy Qur’an claim that all good things have been made lawful for us, without ever explaining them?
Ayesha: The very fact that an exhaustive list of good things has not been given makes some of the things debatable. Thus in the absence of clear prohibition, should not eatables be left to the taste and preferences of a society?
Jhangeer Hanif: “They ask thee (O Muhammad) what is made lawful for them. Say: (all) good things are made lawful for you”. (5:4)
You may note in this verse that the stress is on allowing all good things that man usually eats. The Holy Qur’an only prohibited those things about which there was doubt, for instance, pig, carrion and blood. Even in these times, a majority of people do not adorn their dining tables with ‘vultures’ or ‘donkeys’ cooked in corn oil!
I understand there is some deviation, but it does not have the support of all mankind and can be traced to some point of history back where it originated. For instance, people know that ‘Mini Skirts’ have not always been worn in the west. A few decades back, western ladies wore as much a proper dress as any practicing Muslim lady would wear.
AminahStar: In an article called Natural Food-Meat and Human Evolution found at www.naturalhub.com it states ...As a result, 'meat' for our distant ancestors, was anything that moved - birds, rodents, lizards, turtles, grubs, animals of all kinds. This article also claims that larger animals were not introduced in to the human diet until recently in human history. Therefore, can it really be assumed that our distant ancestors were guided by conscience to eat certain meats and not others?
Jhangeer Hanif: You may get this picture by reading the Darwin theory of evolution but certainly human history and the religious scriptures give a quite different picture. We know from the Holy Qur'an and other scriptures that both Adam (pbuh) and Eve (pbuh) interacted with the Almighty. Do you think they were like animals and ate like beasts? Of course, not!
Our ancestors were guided people and they were one single community. It was only with the passage of time that they differed on various matters and so the Almighty sent His Prophets to guide them. Consider 2:213. Thus, how can we rely on divine guidance exclusively when we are not given a complete list of forbidden things?
Edited by: junaidj on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 10:03 AM |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 8:59 PM
I believe that innate guidance works to certain degree, like we know its morally wrong to steal, rape and plunder. As far as trivial matters are concerned, it cannot be applied or it is very difficult to apply it.
Now coming back to the topic of shark meat, I think if you do not eat shark and eat salmon, then that is full of hypocrisy. Because all carnivore fish tear up their prey and eat them. Fish don't have table manners, all they have is sharp teeth that make a bloody mess. If you apply your reasoning (which I don't agree with in the first place), then you should apply it to all other carnivore fish. |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 9:26 PM
>>I believe that innate guidance works to certain degree
I would suggest that you read the posted excerpts carefully.
>>As far as trivial matters are concerned, it cannot be applied or it is very difficult to apply it.
This really depends on how intact the pristine self has been maintained.
Recall the first time one removed one's beard, or exposure to indecency, or the inconvenience one feels when one has not clipped nails etc.
>>Now coming back to the topic of shark meat, I think if you do not eat shark and eat salmon, then that is full of hypocrisy. Because all carnivore fish tear up their prey and eat them. Fish don't have table manners, all they have is sharp teeth that make a bloody mess. If you apply your reasoning (which I don't agree with in the first place), then you should apply it to all other carnivore fish.
I can understand your logic behind this. Though I would not use as strong a word as hypocricy. I have written to someone for a second opinion, with a threat of consuming shark fin soup if he does not reply :) But I still believe there is something wrong with eating sharks, something from within finds the idea rebellious.
The Shariah has not explicitly forbidden consuming sharks, it leaves natural prohibitions to answer this question.
Edited by: junaidj on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 9:41 PM |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Monday, January 24, 2005 - 2:41 PM
Oosman, I have received the following reply. In view of the fact that salmon and shark share the same characteristic, I will cede to your view point. Though, I will personally avoid eating sharks out of personal preference.
>>We do not usually give precise ruling over such question. We have explained a rule, and that too is based on ijtihaad, that we should not eat those fish which resemble carnivores and which eat their prey like lions etc do. This is not a Qur'a#nic injunction nor is it explained in the Sunnah. We have studied the available divine injunctions regarding the issue and formed our opinion as analogy. You can very comfortably do the otherwise if you are convinced of the fact that we should eat them freely.
>>And if you are convinced of our opinion then you can apply this opinion over all such fish, which share this characteristic. |
|
 Reply to Topic 
Printer Friendly |
| Jump To: |
|
|
|