Question about donkey meat in Islam
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33094
Printed Date: 08 May 2024 at 8:03am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Question about donkey meat in Islam
Posted By: TG12345
Subject: Question about donkey meat in Islam
Date Posted: 18 February 2015 at 7:25pm
|
When I read 2:173 in the Quran, it states: He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah . But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. However, Muhammad if I am not mistaken prohibited the eating of donkeys. (5) Narrated Anas: The Prophet reached Khaibar in the morning, while the people were coming out carrying their spades over their shoulders. When they saw him they said, "This is Muhammad and his army! Muhammad and his army!" So, they took refuge in the fort. The Prophet raised both his hands and said, "Allahu Akbar, Khaibar is ruined, for when we approach a nation (i.e. enemy to fight) then miserable is the morning of the warned ones." Then we found some donkeys which we (killed and) cooked: The announcer of the Prophet announced: "Allah and His Apostle forbid you to eat donkey's meat." So, all the pots including their contents were turned upside down. (Book http://searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=52&translator=1&start=0&number=234 - #52 , Hadith http://searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=52&translator=1&start=0&number=234#234 - #234 ) http://searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=donkey+eat&translator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all - Search the word donkey eat in the Hadith (Hadis) Books (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu-Dawud, and Malik's Muwatta) Donkeys do not to my knowledge fall into either "dead animals" or "blood" or "swine" or "dedicated to other than Allah" categories. Why did Muhammad make prohibited what God did not? Shukran, wa Allahma3k! |
Replies:
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 10 March 2015 at 7:46am
|
A practical explanation is as follows_
As for donkeys, as far as I know this is based on one of two possible reasons both of which are dependent on circumstances. The first is where people needed the donkeys for transporting equipment and people, and in such circumstances they were instructed to not eat the donkeys. This is clearly just a pragmatic temporary ban. The second refers to not eating animals that have been living in effect as part of the family. This means that when we have a domesticated animal living among us, then it would be a violation of our implied agreement with that animal to kill it and eat it. Also, most importantly, you should read the Quran and see how many times Allah SWT has said Ateeullah, Atee ul rasool. "Yaa ayyuhal lazheena aamanu atee�ullaha wa attee�ur Rsoolahu wa laa tawallau �anho wa antum tasma�oon" [O you who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him while you are hearing.> (8:20) Islam came to free humanity from all kinds of oppressions. For the primary responsibility of the Prophet (PBUH), according to the Quran, was to release humanity from those man-made chains "� make lawful to them the good things of life, and forbid them the bad things, and lift from them their burdens and the shackles that were upon them [aforetime>. Those, therefore, who shall believe in him, and honor him, and succour him, and follow the light that has been bestowed from on high through him � it is they that shall attain to a happy state (7:157)." The Prophet (PBUH) accomplished this happy state in his lifetime. Shirk (taking partners with Allah by obeying man-made laws) was removed from the society. And if we want to attain to a happy state, we must emulate this part of the Prophet�s sunnah. |
Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 10 March 2015 at 11:06pm
|
For the same reason Hanafis do not eat horses as well. ------------- <font color=purple>Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.[/COLOR] |
Posted By: TG12345
Date Posted: 14 March 2015 at 11:51pm
Salaam Alaikum, and thank you for the response. Was the ban temporary, or does it still apply today? Also, if eating animals that transport people and "have been living in effect as part of the family", then why a ban on eating donkeys and not camels? Or horses, for that matter?
How can God's messenger be obeyed if he wasn't being clear in his instructions? Earlier, you yourself stated that the ban may have been temporary. Yet other Muslims believe it applies even today. If you read Maulana Maududi's tafsir of 6:145, you will see that Muslim jurists disagreed with each other and with some of Muhammad's companions, as to what food is lawful and what isn't. There appears to be a little difference in the wording of this verse and that of v. 173, Al-Baqarah. In the latter verse it is simply `blood' that is forbidden, but in this verse it is the `blood' that has been shed, when an animal is wounded or slaughtered. The addition of the word masfuh (that has been shed) merely explains the nature of the `blood' and does not make any difference in the "Commandment" itself. Likewise in v. 3 of Al-Ma'idah, some other things besides these four have also been mentioned-the animals that have been strangled or beaten to death, or killed by a fall, or mangled by a beast of prey. This, too, does not make any difference in the "Commandment" in the two verses, because this is an explanation which shows that the animals which are killed in that way should also be considered as "carrion." Now let us consider the various opinions of the Jurists. Hadrat `Abdullah bin `Abbas and Hadrat `A'ishah were of the opinion that, out of the animal food, only these four were unlawful and all others were lawful. But there are several Traditions to the effect that the Holy Prophet prohibited other animals besides these four or held them in detestation, e.g., domestic donkeys and fanged beasts of prey and birds with claws. Therefore most jurists do not consider the prohibition to be confined to these four things only, but extend it to others; then there is also a difference of opinion among the jurists about the prohibition or otherwise of certain animals. For instance, Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik and Imam Shafi`i declare the domestic donkey to be unlawful, but there are others who assert that the domestic donkey, is not unlawful and say that it was prohibited by the Holy Prophet on one occasion only for some special reason. The Hanafi s consider the carnivorous beasts and birds of prey and the animals that live on dead flesh to be absolutely unlawful, but according to Imam Malik and Auza`i, the birds of prey are lawful and Laith considers the cat to be lawful. According to Imam Shafi i. only those carnivorous beasts are unlawful that (like the lion, wolf, tiger) attack man. According to ' Ikrimah, the crow and the badger are both lawful. Then according to the Hanafi s, all crawling creatures are unlawful, whereas Ibn AbiLaila, Imam Malik and Auza' i consider the snake to be lawful. A careful and critical study of the above makes it quite clear that, in reality, only these four things mentioned in the Qur'an are unlawful and that there are certain other animal foods that are detestable in various degrees. Therefore those things, which according to authentic Traditions were held in detestation by the Holy Prophet, are almost unlawful, but those things about which there is a difference of opinion among the jurists, their detestation is doubtful. As far as personal detestation of certain things by some people is concerned, the Islamic Law does not compel anyone to eat what one dislikes. The same applies to the detestation of certain things by some groups or nations. Conversely, the Law does not allow any person or community or nation to force others to consider as unlawful anything that they detest, or to .prohibit its use to those who consider them unlawful. http://englishtafsir.com/Quran/6/index.html#sdfootnote121sym Obviously, Muhammad wasn't being very clear when he was teaching people in the field of which animals are permissible to eat, and which animals are forbidden. Muslim jurists have disagreed and continue to disagree on which animals he banned from being eaten, and which ones he didn't. Interestingly, Muhammad taught that those who make permissible what God made impermissible or those who make impermissible what God made permissible, are guilty of shirk. The lack of clarity on his part while discussing which animals are permissible and which ones are not, means that many Muslims are being led to commit shirk, including at least some of the jurists discussed above in Maududi's tafsir, since they clearly disagree. |
The Saint wrote:Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 15 March 2015 at 2:31pm
|
It's not only about meat.
There are even funny discussions over http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/tomatoes-are-christian-egyptian-salafi-group-warns--.aspx?pageID=238&nid=23713 - Tomatos and I even followed once a discussion about Mangos being haram since they came to Eurasia after Mohamed could have had a chance to express himself about it. These stories are always good for a little chuckle. Airmano |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 16 March 2015 at 3:33am
| You are right, such stories are good ONLY for a chuckle. |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 16 March 2015 at 4:30am
|
Salaam Alaikum, and thank you for the response.
Was the ban temporary, or does it still apply today? Also, if eating animals that transport people and "have been living in effect as part of the family", then why a ban on eating donkeys and not camels? Or horses, for that matter? Waalaikum Assalaam I said it was a temporary ban based on a need at that point of time. Since that ban was temporary the latter part of your question is answered. Obviously, Muhammad wasn't being very clear when he was teaching people in the field of which animals are permissible to eat, and which animals are forbidden. Muslim jurists have disagreed and continue to disagree on which animals he banned from being eaten, and which ones he didn't. Interestingly, Muhammad taught that those who make permissible what God made impermissible or those who make impermissible what God made permissible, are guilty of shirk. The lack of clarity on his part while discussing which animals are permissible and which ones are not, means that many Muslims are being led to commit shirk, including at least some of the jurists discussed above in Maududi's tafsir, since they clearly disagree. It would be wrong to say that Muhammad PBUH was not being clear. And it would also not be correct to accuse following and latter day scholars to confuse matters. Obviously, they were all God-fearing people and they had the best interests of the Ummah at heart. They could not have deliberately caused confusion. They meant well. That is the most important thing. Fiqh, Islamic jurisprudence is a collection of the understanding of well-meaning and learned scholars who gave rulings according to the best of their understanding on matters. Therefore, the differences in rulings as you have so laboriously posted here are inevitable. What does the average Muslim do then? Well, he should act as per the Quranic verse - which says, 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) 49:13 That is to say, he should do what he believes is the right thing to do. Allah SWT is oft-forgiving because he sees the intent. |
Posted By: TG12345
Date Posted: 16 March 2015 at 8:05pm
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.
Then 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?
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. The question remains- why all this confusion about what food is forbidden and what food is allowed?
Why are they inevitable? Could not the instructions have been given more clearly, like they were for example with alcohol and pork?
Where does 49:13 say anything about what one believes to be right? 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? 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 http://searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=54&translator=1&start=0&number=421 - #54 , Hadith http://searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=54&translator=1&start=0&number=421#421 - #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 http://searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=001&translator=2&start=0&number=0297 - #001 , Hadith http://searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=001&translator=2&start=0&number=0297#0297 - #0297 ) http://searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=sun+throne&translator=2&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all - 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. This is something that even kids are expected to know.  We�re always on the move! Even when you�re standing still, you�re moving! You are moving because the http://www.kidseclipse.com/pages/glossary.htm#earth - Earth and everything in our http://www.kidseclipse.com/pages/glossary.htm#system - solar system is constantly moving. Our solar system includes the Sun, nine http://www.kidseclipse.com/pages/glossary.htm#planets - planets and their http://www.kidseclipse.com/pages/glossary.htm#Moon - Moons , http://www.kidseclipse.com/pages/glossary.htm#comet - comets and http://www.kidseclipse.com/pages/glossary.htm#asteroids - asteroids . These objects are sometimes called http://www.kidseclipse.com/pages/glossary.htm#celestial - celestial bodies, and they are constantly moving, too. At the center of it all is the Sun. It takes the Sun 25 days to spin, or http://www.kidseclipse.com/pages/glossary.htm#rotatation - rotate , completely around. The Earth, which is the third planet from the Sun, The Earth�s path around the Sun is called its http://www.kidseclipse.com/pages/glossary.htm#orbit - orbit . It takes the Earth one year, or 365 1/4 days, to completely orbit the Sun. http://www.kidseclipse.com/pages/a1b3c0d0.htm Not to mention that the sun does not have a "rising place", as what we call sunrise is dependent on the movement of the earth, and not the sun. The sun is always "rising" at some point on the earth. |
takes 24 hours to rotate. This is what causes day and night. As the Earth rotates, it also moves, or revolves, around the Sun. Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 25 March 2015 at 4:27am
|
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. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 25 March 2015 at 4:30am
|
If I were to post here huge mistakes attributed to Jesus PBUH, you will be quite embarrassed. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 25 March 2015 at 6:40am
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. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: TG12345
Date Posted: 29 March 2015 at 6:30pm
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.
Who are the four Imams?
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.
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.
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.
Why is banning pork more important than banning donkey meat?
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? Is righteousness decided by the individual or by God?
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.
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? Also, what makes you sure that this hadith could have been fake, but the hadith banning donkey meat is not? |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 31 March 2015 at 2:34am
|
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>. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 31 March 2015 at 3:51am
|
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.
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. Who are the four Imams? Imam Abu Hanifah (ra) Imam Shafi (ra) Imam Malik bin Anas (ra) Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (ra) 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. I thought you had cited the Hadith in which he pronounced the said ban. 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. You thought wrong. 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. 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. He was not the son of God, remember? Why are they inevitable? Could not the instructions have been given more clearly, like they were for example with alcohol and pork? Perhaps, donkey meat is not so bad as pork is. Maybe, God Almighty wishes to test the piety of some by this apparent confusion. Who knows? Certainly, the relevant instructions could have been given more clearly. But as I said, Allah SWT does things that we often do not understand. 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? 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? Is righteousness decided by the individual or by God? Only the intention to do good or bad is within the power of man. All judgements are for God to make. 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. 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 say what to do when Muhammad gave an unclear message. 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. 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? Maybe. There are hadiths classified as Zaaeef, weak. Which are doubtful. Bukhari and Muslim were both men, despite their laborious and honest efforts they could have made a mistake. 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. Also, what makes you sure that this hadith could have been fake, but the hadith banning donkey meat is not? 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. 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. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: TG12345
Date Posted: 01 April 2015 at 9:30pm
What was the specific situation? Why did the ban happen?
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?
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?
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.
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?
No, he wasn't and he didn't claim to be.
Why would it be any less bad? And aside from religious prohibitions, what makes pork worse than other kinds of meat?
Maybe also Muhammad wasn't one of His prophets.
We agree on this.
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?
Agreed, but if a person is sincerely following a false belief, is he being righteous?
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.
... 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?
Are there hadiths that are classified as Zaeef in either Bukhari or Muslim?
Can you show me examples of weak hadiths in their books?
Thanks.
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.
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. |