Muslims and pork

[peezey 0]

Yes, peezy, I did mention an anthopological view early in the thread, but that does in no way preclude the Quran. The Word is for all times, and while it has been delivered to all people acknowledging their own context, an absolutist command does not allow for context or improvements in food storage in seeking to bypass it.

Oh, I certainly wouldn't assume a muslim would seek to bypass directives when questioning or investigating. Nor was it my intent to suggest the ayat might be bypassed through questioning. My question of "why" isn't to question the word of God but rather, understand the context, history, anthropology of the time to come to some sort of reasoning for the ayat. But not to dismiss it.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I didn't get that from you, peezy. My last post was in reference to MBP's suggestion that there could be a contextual basis for the rule. Since the ayat regarding the law of eating pork had not been posted, I thought that posting them would help to make their wording clear.

As I stated before, there is an anthopological view that is founded on historical circumstances, but the Quran isn't allowing for context, history and anthrolopology. It just says it's forbidden as an abomination, unless there is no choice out of neccessity. Willful disobedience is noted and rejected as a reason for breaking the law.

The forbiddance of swine as a casual food source is explicity stated. That makes it divine law for Muslims, as it is for Jews. Divine law, without ambiguity, is to be ignored at your own risk.

[Aymerlu 3]

Ok, so I had to call up my cousin that is a Nazarene preacher and give me some insight on this pork issue. I can remember somewhere, sometime along my life reading or being taught in Sunday School that in the Bible in the Old Testement pork was not to be eaten. My cousin did confrim this so when I asked him why Christians eat it now he said because now we have proper means of keeping the meat good so it doesn't go bad. I don't eat pork anyway, I just thought the comment from my cousin was interesting. When did Christians decide that since there is refrideration pork is ok to eat? Guess I'm now a bit confused wtih the whole matter now.

[mybackpages 0]

Ok, so I had to call up my cousin that is a Nazarene preacher and give me some insight on this pork issue. I can remember somewhere, sometime along my life reading or being taught in Sunday School that in the Bible in the Old Testement pork was not to be eaten. My cousin did confrim this so when I asked him why Christians eat it now he said because now we have proper means of keeping the meat good so it doesn't go bad. I don't eat pork anyway, I just thought the comment from my cousin was interesting. When did Christians decide that since there is refrideration pork is ok to eat? Guess I'm now a bit confused wtih the whole matter now.

The Old Testament still forbids pork, but there is a verse in the New Testament quoting Jesus which is used to look at these practices in a differnt light. I wish I could remember off hand. Maybe someone will come along and post before I have a chance to do a little research on it.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

He has only forbidden you dead meat,

um isn't the meat dead when eaten?

[mybackpages 0]

Ok, so I had to call up my cousin that is a Nazarene preacher and give me some insight on this pork issue. I can remember somewhere, sometime along my life reading or being taught in Sunday School that in the Bible in the Old Testement pork was not to be eaten. My cousin did confrim this so when I asked him why Christians eat it now he said because now we have proper means of keeping the meat good so it doesn't go bad. I don't eat pork anyway, I just thought the comment from my cousin was interesting. When did Christians decide that since there is refrideration pork is ok to eat? Guess I'm now a bit confused wtih the whole matter now.

The Old Testament still forbids pork, but there is a verse in the New Testament quoting Jesus which is used to look at these practices in a differnt light. I wish I could remember off hand. Maybe someone will come along and post before I have a chance to do a little research on it.

I'm not sure if these are the new testament verses i wqs thinking of but both talk about what is unclean.

Matthew 15:10-11

"Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What

goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes

out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' " "

And again in Matthew 15:16-20

""Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. "Don't you see that

whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the

body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart,

and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil

thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony,

slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed

hands does not make him 'unclean.' " "

[Henia 11]

On the topic of pork, does anyone here besides me find it very strange and annoying when you find a Muslim (or really anyone who does not eat a certain food) get violently angry if they smell pork in the air, or that there was a chance pork was cooked in the same pan as their food? I mean, come on...if you had an allergy oooooooook...but come on...if you cared that much, why you eat in resturant that is not halal in the first place?

I mean, myself I have not eaten pork in over 12 years, way before I became Muslim...in fact I am just short of being a vegatarin...but my eyes donnot bug out when I sit next to someone who is eating a pork chop or if I go over a friend's bringing my dishes to eat out of...just in case pork touched it ... I mean I can understand Muslims that have never eaten pork...or even Hindus not ever eating beef being sensitive to that...buuuuuuuut come on! There is cautious, then there is nuts!

[Caladan 19]

Yeah, it's not the case, from the Christian perspective at least, that they were a 'Jewish sect that decided to ignore the dietary laws'; God overruled them as mybackpages quoted. There's a later one in the letter to the Romans. It didn't have a whit to do with refrigeration, as this would have been around 50 A.D.

The anthropological explanation I heard about the ban on certain foods wasn't health-related, as while pigs may be dirty, differentiating between camels and beef, or grasshoppers and ants, all of it in a time of no refrigeration (if it was just that pigs are big and will spoil, why not ban cows?). It was cultural. Nearby tribes of the Israelites ate certain foods and dedicated them to their gods, and so God's command to the Israelites was a command to maintain their own identity (and not merge with other tribes.)

The anthropological explanation for Christianity lifting the ban has to do with its evangelical component. Christianity soon spreads outside the Jews to the Romans and other peoples, none of whom were Jewish or followed the dietary laws. And so there's a power struggle: do you have to convert to Judaism in order to follow Christ? The answer's no, and rejecting the dietary laws is part of that.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Ok, so I had to call up my cousin that is a Nazarene preacher and give me some insight on this pork issue. I can remember somewhere, sometime along my life reading or being taught in Sunday School that in the Bible in the Old Testement pork was not to be eaten. My cousin did confrim this so when I asked him why Christians eat it now he said because now we have proper means of keeping the meat good so it doesn't go bad. I don't eat pork anyway, I just thought the comment from my cousin was interesting. When did Christians decide that since there is refrideration pork is ok to eat? Guess I'm now a bit confused wtih the whole matter now.

The Old Testament still forbids pork, but there is a verse in the New Testament quoting Jesus which is used to look at these practices in a differnt light. I wish I could remember off hand. Maybe someone will come along and post before I have a chance to do a little research on it.

I'm not sure if these are the new testament verses i wqs thinking of but both talk about what is unclean.

Matthew 15:10-11

"Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What

goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes

out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' " "

And again in Matthew 15:16-20

""Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. "Don't you see that

whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the

body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart,

and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil

thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony,

slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed

hands does not make him 'unclean.' " "

These refer to people being clean or unclean depending on what they say, think and believe. I don't see how this negates the command to avoid eating pork. It certainly isn't an explicit abrogation of the earlier law. This is where you would have to rely on interpretation that could be right or wrong.

Unlike Muslims, who believe that our words, deeds and intent count toward our salvation between heaven and hell, Christians are overly reliant on the promise that accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior is the most important thing for them to do to earn salvation. Therefore, perhaps the laws are more easily disregarded, especially if they are from the OT, which, btw, yields the 10 Commandments, too.

On the topic of pork, does anyone here besides me find it very strange and annoying when you find a Muslim (or really anyone who does not eat a certain food) get violently angry if they smell pork in the air, or that there was a chance pork was cooked in the same pan as their food? I mean, come on...if you had an allergy oooooooook...but come on...if you cared that much, why you eat in resturant that is not halal in the first place?

I mean, myself I have not eaten pork in over 12 years, way before I became Muslim...in fact I am just short of being a vegatarin...but my eyes donnot bug out when I sit next to someone who is eating a pork chop or if I go over a friend's bringing my dishes to eat out of...just in case pork touched it ... I mean I can understand Muslims that have never eaten pork...or even Hindus not ever eating beef being sensitive to that...buuuuuuuut come on! There is cautious, then there is nuts!

Yea, bummer. I hate that too. They need to get over it.

Yeah, it's not the case, from the Christian perspective at least, that they were a 'Jewish sect that decided to ignore the dietary laws'; God overruled them as mybackpages quoted. There's a later one in the letter to the Romans. It didn't have a whit to do with refrigeration, as this would have been around 50 A.D.

The anthropological explanation I heard about the ban on certain foods wasn't health-related, as while pigs may be dirty, differentiating between camels and beef, or grasshoppers and ants, all of it in a time of no refrigeration (if it was just that pigs are big and will spoil, why not ban cows?). It was cultural. Nearby tribes of the Israelites ate certain foods and dedicated them to their gods, and so God's command to the Israelites was a command to maintain their own identity (and not merge with other tribes.)

The anthropological explanation for Christianity lifting the ban has to do with its evangelical component. Christianity soon spreads outside the Jews to the Romans and other peoples, none of whom were Jewish or followed the dietary laws. And so there's a power struggle: do you have to convert to Judaism in order to follow Christ? The answer's no, and rejecting the dietary laws is part of that.

It's still unclear to me how one sees permission to abandon dietary laws in the quoted Biblical verses. I also do not see how a mortal's letter to Romans trumps divine law from the OT. But, then, I have always seen the Bible to be more analygous to Islam's ahadith; manmade, but assumed to be inspired. No disrespect intended. I know that Christians struggle over the issues of eating pork, headcovering, and the like, as many Muslims do. People on differing paths come to faith to fill a need, and sometimes that need is how to get around God's laws so they can do what they want and justify it to themselves.

[Caladan 19]

I'm far too tired to find the verse, but there's the few quoted from Matthew above (attributed to Christ), and somewhere, either in Acts, or in a letter (the letter's part of the Bible, by the way), one of the saints (Peter) has a vision where God tells him to eat all of these forbidden foods, and he says 'But it's unclean', and God says, 'What you callin' unclean, eat up!'

So it's intended as an explicit reversal, and it's certainly not a rationalization. (That's not exactly the most neutral way to put it, by the way...like saying someone rationalizes not wearing a veil 'cause they like jeans.) I mean, bacon's tasty and all, but the it's not like people had to stretch to get 'eat the animals' out of 'um, you can eat the animals now.' There's various interpretations, suggesting God meant it metaphorically (to mean 'don't differentiate between Jew and Gentile), but it's not a reach to interpret Acts 10 literally.

Christianity is in a different position with regards to interpretation in that while we hold that the Bible is the word of God, it's not always certain whether that word is metaphorical or literal. It's not grouped by category as Islam is (although I understand there's some debate about that, too.)

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'm far too tired to find the verse, but there's the few quoted from Matthew above (attributed to Christ), and somewhere, either in Acts, or in a letter (the letter's part of the Bible, by the way), one of the saints (Peter) has a vision where God tells him to eat all of these forbidden foods, and he says 'But it's unclean', and God says, 'What you callin' unclean, eat up!'

So it's intended as an explicit reversal, and it's certainly not a rationalization. (That's not exactly the most neutral way to put it, by the way...like saying someone rationalizes not wearing a veil 'cause they like jeans.) I mean, bacon's tasty and all, but the it's not like people had to stretch to get 'eat the animals' out of 'um, you can eat the animals now.' There's various interpretations, suggesting God meant it metaphorically (to mean 'don't differentiate between Jew and Gentile), but it's not a reach to interpret Acts 10 literally.

Christianity is in a different position with regards to interpretation in that while we hold that the Bible is the word of God, it's not always certain whether that word is metaphorical or literal. It's not grouped by category as Islam is (although I understand there's some debate about that, too.)

Acts 10. 1-49

Now in Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of the Cohort called the Italica, devout and God-fearing along with his whole household, who used to give alms generously to the Jewish people and pray to God constantly. One afternoon about three o'clock, he saw plainly in a vision an angel of God come in to him and say to him, "Cornelius."

He looked intently at him and, seized with fear, said, "What is it, sir?" He said to him, "Your prayers and almsgiving have ascended as a memorial offering before God. Now send some men to Joppa and summon one Simon who is called Peter. He is staying with another Simon, a tanner, who has a house by the sea."

When the angel who spoke to him had left, he called two of his servants and a devout soldier from his staff, explained everything to them, and sent them to Joppa. The next day, while they were on their way and nearing the city, Peter went up to the roof terrace to pray at about noontime. He was hungry and wished to eat, and while they were making preparations he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered to the ground by its four corners. In it were all the earth's four-legged animals and reptiles and the birds of the sky.

A voice said to him, "Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat." But Peter said, "Certainly not, sir. For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean." The voice spoke to him again, a second time, "What God has made clean, you are not to call profane."

This happened three times, and then the object was taken up into the sky. While Peter was in doubt about the meaning of the vision he had seen, the men sent by Cornelius asked for Simon's house and arrived at the entrance.

They called out inquiring whether Simon, who is called Peter, was staying there. As Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said (to him), "There are three men here looking for you. So get up, go downstairs, and accompany them without hesitation, because I have sent them." Then Peter went down to the men and said, "I am the one you are looking for. What is the reason for your being here?"

They answered, "Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, respected by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to summon you to his house and to hear what you have to say." So he invited them in and showed them hospitality. The next day he got up and went with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa went with him. On the following day he entered Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and, falling at his feet, paid him homage.

Peter, however, raised him up, saying, "Get up. I myself am also a human being." While he conversed with him, he went in and found many people gathered together and said to them, "You know that it is unlawful for a Jewish man to associate with, or visit, a Gentile, but God has shown me that I should not call any person profane or unclean. And that is why I came without objection when sent for. May I ask, then, why you summoned me?"

Cornelius replied, "Four days ago at this hour, three o'clock in the afternoon, I was at prayer in my house when suddenly a man in dazzling robes stood before me and said, 'Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your almsgiving remembered before God. Send therefore to Joppa and summon Simon, who is called Peter. He is a guest in the house of Simon, a tanner, by the sea.' So I sent for you immediately, and you were kind enough to come. Now therefore we are all here in the presence of God to listen to all that you have been commanded by the Lord."

Then Peter proceeded to speak and said, "In truth, I see that God shows no partiality. Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him. You know the word (that) he sent to the Israelites as he proclaimed peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all, what has happened all over Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached, how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the holy Spirit and power. He went about doing good and healing all those oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.

We are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and (in) Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree. This man God raised (on) the third day and granted that he be visible, not to all the people, but to us, the witnesses chosen by God in advance, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commissioned us to preach to the people and testify that he is the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness, that everyone who believes in him will receive forgiveness of sins through his name."

While Peter was still speaking these things, the holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the word. The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were astounded that the gift of the holy Spirit should have been poured out on the Gentiles also, for they could hear them speaking in tongues and glorifying God. Then Peter responded, "Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?" He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they invited him to stay for a few days.

If you read the entire chapter rather than take the verses out of context, it appears to me that the story is allegorical (relating a moral point; demonstrating an abstract idea using symbolic figures, often animals), thus, making the primary point of the vision to show that people are not profane, not that certain foods are not profane. If food purity was the point, perhaps Peter would have sat down to a steaming pork dinner afterward, having received direct information that it was permissible to eat pig.

Yet, instead, he accepted a Gentile into his home, using the vision to explain that by doing so, he was breaking Jewish law, but obeying God's law. IMO, it is quite a reach to claim that Acts explicitly abrogates OT dietary laws against pig. The animals in the allegory represented the diversity among God's human creation; people, not pigs. Peter declares, ". . . I myself am also a human being". Then, "In truth, I see that God shows no partiality. Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him." Nothing about eating pig.

This is a theme echoes in the Quran too. God says: O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things). [Q 49:13]

The leap has been made that Christians are free to eat pork, but if that is the means for doing so, it is a dangerous leap to assume so upon an unclear abrogation. "Rationalization" is an appropriate word if that is what seems to be the case, and that is what I see so far.

Christianity is in a different position with regards to interpretation in that while we hold that the Bible is the word of God, it's not always certain whether that word is metaphorical or literal. It's not grouped by category as Islam is (although I understand there's some debate about that, too.)

I'm not sure what this means, as the Quran has metaphorical, literal and allegorical passages. I don't know what differing categories for Islam that you are referring to.

Edited December 17, 2006 by szsz

[Sofiyya 1,687]

While Peter was in doubt about the meaning of the vision he had seen, the men sent by Cornelius asked for Simon's house and arrived at the entrance.

They called out inquiring whether Simon, who is called Peter, was staying there. As Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said (to him), "There are three men here looking for you. So get up, go downstairs, and accompany them without hesitation, because I have sent them." Then Peter went down to the men and said, "I am the one you are looking for. What is the reason for your being here?"

Before my editing ability waned, I had intended to add, regarding this portion of the chapter, that it mentions twice that Peter is unsure about the meaning of the vision before meeting Cornelious. However, upon their meeting, he is clearly aware that God's Message to him is about the humanity and unity of persons; a Message he should act on and pass on upon this opportunity. I'm not sure how overturning dietary laws came out of his explanation.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

.... When did Christians decide that since there is refrideration pork is ok to eat? Guess I'm now a bit confused wtih the whole matter now.

Actually, that issue turns out NOT to be about refrigeration.

Acts 10:9-23

• On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
  
• And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

16This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

17Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,

18And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.

19While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

20Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

21Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?

22And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.

23Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Failed to completely edit above message.

The Acts passage actually was God's way of making it easier for Gentiles (mostly Greeks and Romans initially, some others) to accept His revelation without learning all about Levitical law (of which most had no knowledge)

Anyway, there were good reasons that God gave the Levitical laws in the first place.

Also, another factoid: in India, pork is only consumed in Kerala (population 24 million, roughly 1/3 Muslim; the remaining 2/3 includes all grades from lacto-vegetarian to non-veg) and in northeast (where tribal religions and nominal Christianity predominate--and where kraits and cobras are also consumed; total population 21 million). That leaves 1,205 million Indians (of whom 780 million are post-1926 definition Hindus) who NEVER consume pork (in fact, the very rumour that lard would be used as cartridge-grease was enough to spark the 1857 mutiny)!

[doodlebug 3]

He has only forbidden you dead meat,

um isn't the meat dead when eaten?