:salamext:
Shariah encompasses many aspects, from marriage and divorce to inheritance and trade transactions. The penal system is just one of its many branches. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to single out some aspects of its penal policy to judge the merit of the entire law. Even worse is simply basing one's judgement on news stories as opposed to actual teachings of Islam. Instead, the Islamic penal system should be viewed with the background of the whole Islamic system of life.
Have a read of the following allegorical story. It's a modified transcript from a lecture by Yasir Qadhi. Although it is somewhat long, I think it illustrates very well a number of important points in these kinds of discussions. If you want to listen to it instead, you can find it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9EZ-OY5MUA
Imagine a land far, far away, an imaginary land, let's call it the United Lands of Veganopolis. The people of this land (the Veganopolopians), were vegans. They didn’t eat any meat or meat derived products because they felt it is cruel, primitive and uncivilized.They felt above the rest of society since they did not eat meat. They considered themselves so advanced that they divided the entire world based upon the people’s convictions regarding eating meat. The countries who agreed with them were called the ‘Primary World’, those who rejected it were the ‘Tertiary World’ and those in the middle were called the ‘Secondary World’.
Now imagine, in this United Lands of Veganopolis, three brothers called Salman, Khalid and Ali. Their parents had come from one of these tertiary world countries but they were raised in Veganopolis and they grew up absorbing the culture and the environment that they found themselves in. Their parents were Muslims but they didn't do a thorough job of explaining the fundamentals of Islam to their three children. So the three children grew up occasionally practising Islam, calling themselves Muslims, but not really and truly understanding the fundamentals of their religion.
Now it so happens that when these three children grew up and became adults, their parents passed away in a short period of time one after the other, and for the first time in their lives they had to think about very deep and crucial issues. They went through a spiritual crisis. So they sat down one day and said, 'You know we've never studied this religion of our parents. This country that they came from in the tertiary world, they were all Muslims in that country. When they came here they took their Islam and they brought us into this religion as well but we never studied it, so let us study this religion, let us give ourselves a few months and then come back and discuss our findings, what do we think of our religion of Islam.'
And so the three brothers went and parted their different ways and studiously investigated the Qur'an, the books of Hadith, the books of theology, the books of Fiqh and after six months they met once again to present their conclusion. Salman was the oldest of the three. He said,
'You know guys, our parents were great people, they really and truly loved us, and they were honest people, but with all due respect to them and their beliefs, after studying Islam I've come to the conclusion that it's a false religion. I cannot be a Muslim anymore.'
Both of his brothers were totally shocked. But he said:
'Listen to me, let me explain my position; don't be hasty in judging me. I knew that our parents used to eat meat, and yes occasionally we would eat it too growing up, even though we would be embarrassed and not wanna tell our friends what we were doing, but we ate meat sometimes, and this was something we thought they imported from their tertiary world countries. But for the first time in my life I actually read the Qur'an, I went back to the books of Hadith, I studied the books of Fiqh and it is very clear to me having studied these texts that the religion of Islam openly and unabashedly allows the eating of meat. In fact, it tells us that eating meat is one of the blessings of God, the Qur'an tells us that eating meat is a blessing and to eat the meat over which God's name has been mentioned.'
Salman continued:
'Look at these verses, as for the Hadith and Sunnah, it is confirmed that in this book they call Bukhari, which is considered to be the most authentic book by Muslims, it is confirmed in this book that one of the most beloved dishes to the prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa salam) was a juicy sheep's leg, he loved it, and it is also confirmed that he would always eat meat when it was presented to him. From the books of Sunnah we know that he commanded his companions to actually slaughter and kill animals on religious holidays and festivals, for example when children were born and on Eid al Adha and so on. And when I looked at the books of Fiqh, even more amazement, forget cows and sheep and other animals that even most of the other non-Muslims of the tertiary world countries eat, I mean some of these Madhabs - there's this madhab called the Hanbalis and another called the Shafi'is - they even allowed the eating of foxes and coyotes. Most of the scholars of hadith deemed it permissible to eat desert lizards. And then there's this person, they call him Malik, he has a Maliki madhab, this man IS JUST TOTALLY AMAZING! This madhab claims that it's not even sinful to eat cats, dogs, scorpions and snakes. And I even found some scholars who allowed the eating of vermin and other insects.
So in all honesty, I must state that I cannot believe in a book that claims to be divine and yet allows such barbaric uncivilised backward, disgusting practices. I cannot be a Muslim anymore because this book really and truly is a backwards book; it tells us that eating meat is permissible and a blessing from God. So I now believe it is my duty to convince my fellow Muslims that their religion is not a correct religion, that they have to live up with the times. They have to understand that that was something of the past, now we know and we're sure that eating meat is an uncivilised and barbaric practice.'
So Salman gave his speech and the other two brothers listened quietly to what he had to say. Then the middle brother spoke whose name was Khalid. Khalid said:
'My brothers, I too have studied the text extensively, and I too have read the Qur'an and have read the books of the scholars of the past, and all of this has led me to reaffirm my commitment to the religion of Islam. I am totally sure of this beautiful religion. I am a Muslim, and I am proud of it.
Now I must confess, my dear brother Salman, that a lot of what you said might be true from a historical point of view, but I think your analysis is very superficial, that you haven't really undertaken a critical methodological study of the texts of Islam. You are taking things out of context without historical analysis, without really thinking about where these things came from. Firstly, you have to realise the Qur'an, no doubt, is a book from God but it was revealed at a specific time and place. You cannot just take the understanding of a scholar a thousand years ago and extrapolate it to our times, we need to think deeper about these verses, realise that the Qur'an came to a group of backward people, people who were immersed in the eating of meat and carrion. They would drink blood and offer sacrifices to their idols, so when Islam came, it couldn't eradicate the eating of meat - it would be too radical to do so. Rather what it did was that it modified it, to make it acceptable, refined, sophisticated for the people of those times.
Now we have evolved to a higher level and we need to explicate these verses and give them a fresh look in order to make them consonant with the times we live in. As for these hadith you quoted, well, realise first and foremost that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), no doubt I respect and love him, but he was a human being, he wasn't divine. Also, these books of hadith, I mean they were compiled hundreds of years after the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). We don't really know whether they can be authentic or not. And if you look at it, there can be no doubt that the majority of times the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not eat meat.
I mean in the same book you quoted, Bukhari, it's mentioned that his wife Aisha said three months would go by and no fire would be lit, so they're not eating meat for three months! And there's also many narrations where certain types of meat were presented to the prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and he said 'I don't want to eat this meat'. Likewise for most of his life he would eat a vegetarian diet, meat was not something that was common, and it is also narrated that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) rebuked a person for mistreating his animal. So is it possible that the same Prophet, the Prophet of mercy (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who got angry when a person didn't feed his animal properly, would then command us to sacrafice an animal and eat it?
I mean use your mind O Salman, THINK!! How is it possible that this Prophet of mercy will instruct his companions to be bloodthirsty on this day of Eid Al Adha? Think deeper than that, don't just read these books of hadith and take it for granted, and as for these scholars of Fiqh, I mean COME ON THESE ARE HUMAN BEINGS who lived and died; they are not a source of authority. Yes you're gonna find scholars who have strange and exotic opinions but you also find other opinions, for example there's this other madhab called the Hanafi madhab, and this madhab doesn't allow the eating of any meat from the sea except for a certain type of fish. So all types of shrimps and lobsters etc. the Hanafi madhab said we cannot eat it.
So you see we find certain parellels in the scholars of the past, when they had these progressive views, we have to look at the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. So in my opinion if you understand the general rules of Islam and work with them, it is possible to incorporate many of the modern ethics that we have with regards to our diet and culinary opinions and we realise that Islam came with the intent of eradicating the evil pratice of eating meat even though it didn't do so from day one.
Therefore I am a Muslim and I am proud of it, and I say Islam does not allow the eating of meat.'
This was the response of Khalid. It was now Ali's turn, the youngest of the three and also the most contemplative and intelligent of them. Ali nodded his head and began his articulation. He said:
'My dear older brothers Khalid and Salman, although the outcome of both of your searches has ended in diametrically opposed opinions, that one of you claims he is a kafir and the other claims he is a Muslim, in reality both of you are operating from the same paradigm, both of you are coming from the same usool, from the same framework and principles, and this has led both of you to go into errors even though the errors are opposite of one another.
The premise from which you commenced your investigation was to accede the validity of what your culture has taken for granted which is that eating animals is morally and ethically reprehensible and barbaric. It was this same basic premise which was accepted as beyond question by both of you that caused you, O Salman, to reject our religion when it clearly allows for the eating of meat, and it caused you, O Khalid, to improvise our religion and change it in an unprecedented manner. But both of you never questioned the validity of this belief, you never once asked yourself, "Is it possible that what my culture and civilisation has believed in this matter is simply not correct? Is eating meat an ethical abomination? And if a civilization becomes vegan does this mean that they are the pinnacle of civilization, that they are the First World and the Primary World? And everybody else is living in barbaric and backward lands?"
You see, my dear brothers, this is where you fell into an error. The correctness and validity of a religion should not be decided on subsidiary issues such as its position on eating meat. You don't decide whether a religion is valid by looking at whether it allows eating meat or not, rather a religion's primary claim of legitimacy stems from its theological positions, questions of doctrine such as the nature of God, the purpose of life, the concept of an afterlife... This is where we think about religion. This is what we use to judge between the various religions, this is what we place our verdict on; we look at the theology of a faith, we look at the concept of God and the worship of God and then we decide whether that religion is valid or not. And once we have decided that a particular religion is valid then we must take it as an entire and total package because if we were to start examining every subsidiary legal ruling, trying to outguess the religion, then in reality we are not submitting to the religion but rather causing the religion to submit to us.
Now if we apply this criterion to Islam we find that no other religion is as persuasive, as cogent in its appeal to legitimacy as the religion of Islam. No other religion has such a simple perfect rational theology. And this is something I can clearly prove to you - the concept of Allah and His Names and Attributes, and that only He has the right to be worshipped, and He sends perfect human beings called Messengers and so on and so forth. No other religion even comes close! There's no competition. Islam beats all religions hands down. So when I came to this conclusion, when I realised that this is true, I then realised that I have to submit to the commandments that also came with the theology; it is not my right to separate the commandments from the theology.
And when I looked at the Qur'an and Sunnah then I had to agree with my brother Salman, that yes the Qur'an and Sunnah clearly calls for the eating of meat, the permissibility and the fact it is a blessing from God that we have been allowed to eat meat. This realisation caused me for the first time to challenge the premise upon which our society lays its claim for fame, which is that eating meat is a backwards thing. Our society claims it is the pinnacle of civilization because they are a society of vegans, they consider themselves the most civilized, the most mighty, the most powerful simply because of this issue. But for the first time in my life I had to look at this premise and think about it in a very deep manner, never before had I questioned it. But now because the Qur'an and Sunnah was clearly calling to it I had to think about it, and I thought of a number of things.
Firstly, how do we judge whether something is immoral or ethical, how do we judge? I mean no doubt certain things such as taking a person's property or even his life, we know from our fitrah that these are unjust and evil, but not everything can be based upon the fitrah. What might be appealing to you might be distasteful to me, and what I might like, you might hate, so I can't use my opinion to say that eating meat is unethical. So how do we prove this point? In other words it is impossible to categorically claim that eating meat is ethical or unethical, it is impossible to say so, what proof do I have?
Secondly, I noticed that the majority of mankind, not only in our times but also throughout the centuries ate meat, and it doesn't appear that they lived any less happily then we do. In fact, we've all been back home to our Tertiary World countries and in all honesty, even though they're eating meat they seem to be happier because of it. They're living happier lives then we are in this Primary World country; they're joyful, they love their society and culture, they love each other.
Thirdly, we claim to have reached the pinnacle of civilization but let's be honest here, we look down on other civilizations just because of this issue, yet we truly ignore a million other factors! How can we ignore that our society is the most violent of all societies, the most promiscuous, the most infested with crime and drugs, THE HIGHEST IN THE WORLD IN TERM OF ITS INHABITANTS IN JAIL? How can we forget these statistics and throw them under the table and say just because we are a vegan society, just because we call to not eating meat we are the best of mankind? How can we claim moral and spiritual superiorty when statistics show that our lives are worse and inferior to other men in Tertiary World countries. And it's not just the quantity of crimes that our civilization commits, it's the heinousness and the monstrosity. Last week it was reported that a woman threw her baby in the microwave and cooked her untill the baby died. Also about the parents killing their children and the children killing their parents you don't hear about these crimes in other countries. It's not just the quantity, it's the monstrosity and the way its blatantly advertised in the news and not a person blinks his or her eyes when they read it.
How can you ignore all of this and say just because we don't eat meat we have reached the pinnacle of civilization? So you see, in my opinion, I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong in this issue, that the moral and ethical views of the United Lands of Veganopolos are simply not the moral and ethical views that are divine in and of themselves. They could be right and they could be wrong. And it was this basic premise that both of you fell into and which caused both of you to fall into serious mistakes, even though both of you are on opposite sides of the fence, in reality you're not that far apart.
And a very strange fact must be said here. Salman you have rejected Islam, you have said you're not a Muslim anymore and while it's true that the average Muslim will be appalled and disgusted by your blatant Kufr, in reality you make more logical sense and your opinions are more easily defendable both historically and textually than the opinions of Khalid. Because you Salman come out and say, "I don't believe in this religion", what can a person argue now with you, but you O Khalid claim you are a believer and yet you come forth with opinions which go against the book, and you come forth with opinions that have no precedence in history, no precendence in Usool, no precedence in Hadith, how can you claim to be a believer and yet reject every second statement in the Book and the Sunnah. Your opinions, O Khalid, you who have claimed to be a Muslim, are illogical and more difficult to defend than the opinion of Salman who has rejected Islam outright.
So to conclude, I am a Muslim and I'm proud of it, but if I am a Muslim then by definition (what does it mean to be a Muslim), I must submit to the laws of Islam, I must do Islam to the laws of Islam and not take the laws of Islam and make them Muslim to me, make them submit to me.
As for both of you, I pray that Allah guides you to understand that your concept of intellect and ethics is not an ultimate judge over Allah, you are not more wiser or more knowledgeable than Allah. Use your intellect and knowledge where you should and refrain from using it when it is not part of the realm of intellect and logic.'
This is the end of the parable. In our times it's not the issue of meat that is problematic but rather issues of freedom of choice, of punishments, of women's roles, of morality.
Salman represents those people who say Islam cannot be divine because it asks women to cover up, or to cut off the hand of the thief. They openly say Islam is backward. But they have judged the deen on subsidiary issues.
Khalid represents the progressives. They take the values of their land and say this is the paradigm of Islam – “Islam came with vegan ethics.” Basically they say Allah could only do so much, and now that I, Khalid, have come, I can bring Islam up to par with the United Lands of Veganopolis. For 14 centuries, everyone had it wrong until he came along. And this is really the conclusion progressives are forced to make.
Ali is the rare breed in our times, combining historical reality and ethical dimensions of Veganopolis with a deep and profound understanding of Islam.