Question about donkey meat in Islam

TG123456 wrote: Then why only mention of the donkeys? As we can hopefully see, banning the consumption of donkeys because they transport things and/or are considered part of the family but at the same time allow eating of camels or horses makes no sense.

The Saint wrote: It does make plenty of sense. But you are overlooking the fact that the specific situation, time and place in which donkey slaughter was banned warranted a ban only donkeys.

What was the specific situation? Why did the ban happen?

TG12345 wrote: Who are the four Imams?

The Saint wrote: Imam Abu Hanifah (ra) Imam Shafi (ra) Imam Malik bin Anas (ra) Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (ra)

Did any of these people live during the time of Muhammad? Imam Hanifa was born in AD 699, some 67 years after Muhammad was born. The others came later.

Who were people supposed to turn to for guidance during that time?

TG12345 wrote: Eating or refusing to eat donkey meat due to religious reasons is a decision, isn't it? You either decide that eating donkey meat is OK, or you decide that it is not. Unfortunately, Muhammad was unclear on this.

The Saint wrote: I thought you had cited the Hadith in which he pronounced the said ban.

Yet there is confusion as to whether the ban applied only to a certain time, or only today.

And according to Aisha and Ibn Abbas, donkey meat is not banned because the Quran doesn't say it is. Did they disobey his prophecy?

TG12345 wrote: So non-Muslims and others who don't follow Islam will be judged on their actions, not their lack of faith? I thought all who reject Islam knowingly and/or knowingly follow another religion go to hell forever.

The Saint wrote: You thought wrong.

What about this verse then?

3:85

And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.

TG12345 wrote: Of course there is confusion. If there wasn't, you wouldn't have three camps of people: 1) Those like Aisha and Ibn Abbas who claim donkey meat is not haraam 2) Those like Abu Hanifa who believe it is haraam always and always will be 3) Others who claim it was only haraam during a specific time Obviously, one group is right and the other two are wrong. All three may mean well, but their disagreement is due to Muhammad not having been clear enough.

The Saint wrote: Muhammad PBUH was not clear on much more significant issues. Definitely more serious than the trivial issue of donkey meat. For example, he did not know what was going to happen to him? When was the Day going to occur? He was not omniscient and he did not claim to be so.

Yet the Quran tells Muslims to obey him. How can you obey someone who is unclear about what his expectations are?

What did Muhammad mean when he said he was unclear about what will happen to him?

The Saint wrote: He was not the son of God, remember?

No, he wasn't and he didn't claim to be.

TG12345 wrote: Why are they inevitable? Could not the instructions have been given more clearly, like they were for example with alcohol and pork?

The Saint wrote: Perhaps, donkey meat is not so bad as pork is.

Why would it be any less bad? And aside from religious prohibitions, what makes pork worse than other kinds of meat?

The Saint wrote:  Maybe, God Almighty wishes to test the piety of some by this apparent confusion. Who knows?

Maybe also Muhammad wasn't one of His prophets.

The Saint wrote: Certainly, the relevant instructions could have been given more clearly. But as I said, Allah SWT does things that we often do not understand.

We agree on this.

TG12345 wrote: It says the one who is most honoured in God's sight is he who is most righteous. Where does this say that being most righteous means doing what one believes is right?

The Saint wrote: Well, you tell me who is a righteous person, if he is not one who acts in good faith and acts on the basis of knowledge that has come to him?

What about a person who follows what God revealed? You say that a person acting in good faith on the basis of knowledge that has come to him is righteous.

What if the knowledge he is operating with is false?

TG12345 wrote: Is righteousness decided by the individual or by God?

The Saint wrote: Only the intention to do good or bad is within the power of man. All judgements are for God to make.

Agreed, but if a person is sincerely following a false belief, is he being righteous?

The TG12345 wrote: I don't see anything in the verse you just cited about what to do if neither the Quran or Muhammad or Imams give clear instructions. It says that God and Muhammad are to be referred to if there is disagreement... it doesn't say what to do when Muhammad gave an unclear message.

The Saint wrote: 4:59. O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination. The verse actually answers all your questions. Who do you think are, "and those charged with authority among you"? Imams, Muftis, Scholars who have studied the religion and who know more than you.

It doesn't actually say to refer to them to the ones charged with authority if Muhammad is being unclear.

It says to obey God and Muhammad and the authorities.
If there is a difference of opinion, they are to refer to God and Muhammad.

It doesn't say what to do when neither Muhammad or God are being unclear.

Perhaps the Quran's author didn't think that was a possibility.

Also, no instructions are given as to what to do when the scholars and muftis and imams disagree.

TG12345 wrote: ... it doesn't say what to do when Muhammad gave an unclear message.

The Saint wrote: In the absence of any clear ruling on a matter a Muslim should take the best decision on the basis of his knowledge and belief.

... however the Quran says that if Muslims are unsure of something they are to refer to Muhammad and God. Yet Muhammad and the Quran's author have not always given clear instructions. So we have a problem.

Does the Quran say anywhere what to do when Muhammad is being unclear?

TG12345 wrote: Are you saying that Jews and Christians put fake hadiths into Imam Bukhari's and Muslim's collections? How and when did this happen? Are you saying that these men included fake hadiths into their work? Can you point to any Muslim scholar who has stated that these hadiths are false?

The Saint wrote: Maybe. There are hadiths classified as Zaaeef, weak. Which are doubtful.

Are there hadiths that are classified as Zaeef in either Bukhari or Muslim?

The Saint wrote: Bukhari and Muslim were both men, despite their laborious and honest efforts they could have made a mistake.

Can you show me examples of weak hadiths in their books?

The Saint wrote: No, once again, you are unable to grasp the spirit of Islam. You must realise that it is the intent of an individual, in Islam, that makes him pious or sinful. Not the lack of knowledge. Although, knowledge is preferable I shall surely search for such works and get back to you.

Thanks.

TG12345 wrote: Also, what makes you sure that this hadith could have been fake, but the hadith banning donkey meat is not?

The Saint wrote: There is always a criterion for arriving at certain decisions. We have one, too. We believe, Muhammad PBUH was taught by One who is all knowing, powerful and wise. So, he could not have made mistakes. If it appears he made a mistake, it can only be that it has been made to appear to be so.

That sounds like circular reasoning to me. It would be like a Christian saying "Everything in the Bible is without mistake. Therefore if a verse found in the Bible contains an error, it can only be that it was made to appear to be so". Many Christians sadly use that type of reasoning, and I used to be one of them.

The Saint wrote: I am sure you know that in about 150 years before the last century there were about 60000 books published, mostly in the west, that contained patently concocted content about him. "Since the very beginning studies on Prophet Muhammad in the West have been based mostly on various prejudices and calumnies. The biased views about Islam and its Prophet were initially produced and disseminated by the religious establishments and politicians of the Judeo-Christian world, who had lost their power to a large extent due to the expansion of Islam, in response to the conversion of large numbers of people into this new religion. The main purpose of these incorrect statements was to mislead people into staying away from Islam by creating a false image of the religion and Prophet Muhammad. Thus, such denigrated images of the Prophet as being "mentally ill", a "liar", a "fake prophet" and an "anti-Christ", none of which had any factual historical basis, were produced and re-produced throughout the centuries in the West. In fact, there has emerged a substantial literature under this heading (see Alphandery). Montgomery Watt, a leading Orientalist himself, says that among all the greatest men in history, no one has been denigrated as much as Prophet Muhammad (Muhammad at Madina, p. 324). In this sense, the history of what has been said and written about Prophet Muhammad is fascinating if one examines it as a history of calumnies, slander and misunderstanding. For example, for a long time Prophet Muhammad had been misnamed "Maphomet", "Baphomet" and "Bafum", all of which are laden with negative meanings, and Muslims were said to be pagans with "Mahomet" being one of the idols that they worship -a few examples of the widespread and deep misconceptions about Islam and its prophet. One of the leading figures who initiated the campaign of denigration against Prophet Muhammad was John of Damascus (d. 750 AD), a Christian priest. In the last sections of his book, De haeresibus, John discusses Prophet Muhammad and sees him, just like those Orientalists who followed him throughout the entire Middle Ages did, as a "heretic" or a "fake prophet" who deceived the people around him by using Christian sources with the help of an Arian priest, rather than the prophet of a new religion. Moreover, Prophet Muhammad's marriages and the wars he fought are discussed in this book in a biased way; these baseless criticisms later became the (sole) basis of other Orientalists who for the most part simply repeated what John had said before them. In fact, this still continues today." http://www.lastprophet.info/the-orientalist-view-of-prophet-muhammad That was just to give you a background to how serious hate has been directed at him. And in such an atmosphere no stone was left unturned to malign him and denigrate him.

Muhammad was definitely hated by many Christians and Jews and pagans, but I'm still curious as to what evidence you have that any of these people wrote hadiths which both Muslim and Bukhari included in their collections, and which no scholars to the best of my knowledge have classified as Zaeef.


Edited by TG12345 - 01 April 2015 at 9:31pm

Originally posted by The Saint

I am sure you know that the Quran is the paramount source of laws in Islam. In case the Quran is silent on a matter then the the relevant Hadith will prevail.

Are you sure about that? My understanding is that the hadith are only used to explain the Quran, not to add to it. If the Quran is silent on a matter, then it it not a religious issue.

I am afraid your understanding about Hadiths is incorrect. Besides explaining the Quran, Hadiths also elaborate on the terse and often cryptic language of it. In many cases, Hadiths elaborate on the background of verses revealed in specific circumstances.
The Prophet PBUH practically enacted.....lived the Quran to make its understanding easier for His followers.

Otherwise the Quran is incomplete and Muhammad is acting as a partner to God in completing His message. But God does not have partners, as you know.

If Muhammad PBUH was suggesting a partnership with Allah SWT, Naoozobillah, why would he not say so? I do not understand your logic?

Also you seem to be unaware that Allah SWT has warned in the Quran those who would deign to add to the Quran.

69:40. That this is verily the word of an honoured messenger;
41. It is not the word of a poet: little it is ye believe!
42. Nor is it the word of a soothsayer: little admonition it is ye receive.
43. [This is> a Message sent down from the Lord of the Worlds.
44. And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name,
45. We should certainly seize him by his right hand,
46. And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart:
47. Nor could any of you withhold him [from Our wrath>.

The Saint wrote: I am sure you know that the Quran is the paramount source of laws in Islam. In case the Quran is silent on a matter then the the relevant Hadith will prevail.

Are you sure about that?  My understanding is that the hadith are only used to explain the Quran, not to add to it.  If the Quran is silent on a matter, then it it not a religious issue.

Otherwise the Quran is incomplete and Muhammad is acting as a partner to God in completing His message.  But God does not have partners, as you know.

Banning the consumption of donkeys because they transported things and/or were seen as "part of the family" makes no sense, since the exact same thing was true of camels and horses.

Of course, the ban would have equally applied on camels and horses, if a similar situation had arisen involving them.

hen what happened? Either Muhammad gave unclear instructions, or some of his followers changed them.

Either donkeys were only at one time haraam, or they are haraam always. Why are there different opinions among Muslim scholars on this? Did you realize that Muhammad's wife and Ibn Abbas stated that the only haraam animals are found in the Quran (ie they did not say donkey consumption is not haraam), while others like Abu Hanifa stated it is haraam, yet others stated that they were only haraam for a certain time?

Who is right???

What other way can this be explained other than either
a) unclear instructions
b) people changing or adding or taking away from what Muhammad said?

You are confused for no reason at all.

I am sure you know that the Quran is the paramount source of laws in Islam. In case the Quran is silent on a matter then the the relevant Hadith will prevail. In the absence of clarity in neither of them word of the four Imams should be sought.

Above all, the last source is one's own conscience. If a Muslim gets no guidance from anywhere then he should avoid taking a decision if it is not a matter of life and death. But if it is he can go according to his best intentions. He will thus be judged as per his intent.

Sure, but the Quran only Muslims also mean well. So do many non-Muslim Christians and Jews and Hindus and Sikhs, all who fear God and want to do good in the world.

They shall be judged on the merit of their actions.

The question remains- why all this confusion about what food is forbidden and what food is allowed?

There is no confusion. I have already explained the process a Muslim goes through to decide a matter.

Why are they inevitable?
Could not the instructions have been given more clearly, like they were for example with alcohol and pork?

In His infinite wisdom God Almighty did not deem it necessary. Particularly, considering the matter's relatively low importance.

Where does 49:13 say anything about what one believes to be right?

Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is
[he who is> the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well
acquainted [with all things>.

Read the verse carefully. And then tell me who is a righteous person?

What about 4:59, which states:

O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.

How are Muslims supposed to follow those in authority over them, if those in authority disagree about what the Messenger said? And how can they turn to the Messenger, when the unclarity of his message caused the confusion of the ones in authority in the first place?

4:59. O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with
authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to
Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is
best, and most suitable for final determination.

As I have said again and again that the final word on any matter is of the Quran, then the Hadiths and then the Imams. But in the absence of all of above a Muslim should take the best decision on te basis of his knowledge and belief.

Furthermore, how can you obey what the Messenger said when we know he said some things that just weren't true?

(1) Narrated Abu Dhar: The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: "And the sun Runs its fixed course For a term (decreed). that is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing." (36.38) (Book #54, Hadith #421)

(1) It is narrated on the authority of Abu Dharr that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) one day said: Do you know where the sun goes? They replied: Allah and His Apostle know best. He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Verily it (the sun) glides till it reaches its resting place under the throne. Then it falls prostrate and remains there until it is asked: Rise up and go to the place whence you came, and it goes back and continues emerging out from its rising place and then glides till it reaches its place of rest under the throne and falls prostrate and remains in that state until it is asked: Rise up and return to the place whence you came, and it returns and emerges out from it rising place and the it glides (in such a normal way) that the people do not discern anything ( unusual in it) till it reaches its resting place under the throne. Then it would be said to it: Rise up and emerge out from the place of your setting, and it will rise from the place of its setting. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said. Do you know when it would happen? It would happen at the time when faith will not benefit one who has not previously believed or has derived no good from the faith. (Book #001, Hadith #0297)

Search the word sun throne in the Hadith (Hadis) Books (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu-Dawud, and Malik's Muwatta)

According to what Muhammad taught, the sun stops moving between each time it rises and sets, because it stops gliding and falls prostate beneath God's throne in the place where it rests. We know that the sun rises in most areas of the world, every 24 hours. According to Muhammad, once a day at least, the sun stops moving. Yet we know that the sun is in continous motion.



I have already said that these could be fake hadiths attribued to the Prophet PBUH. There is a big body of fake work attributed to the Prophet PBUH put together by the jews and possibly christians as well.