Why pork is forbidden in Islam?

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye

Speak for yourself... two weeks is hardly enough time for starvation and regardless one who is accustomed to fast and prayer would rather meet with God hungry than being pig dinning on pigs after all you are what you eat.. and if there are hypocrites and liars here, it would be you, a real live Tartuffe! One is more likely to die of thirst than dinning on the swine that your dying god didn't eat!

Just ignore him, he is trying to start a fight with you based on religious disagreeance (and possibly hatred as well).

People like that are best left ignored.

format_quote Originally Posted by Justufy

I don’t think anything that enters the body can make it impure, rather it is what comes out of the body: Foul words and whatnot that makes it impure, such is my view.

The life of a man is a compound of body and soul. Anything, which is harmful for the body, hurts the soul as well. Consumption of swine-flesh reduces the feeling of shame and as such the standard of modesty. Those nations, which consume pork habitually, have a low standard of morality with the result that virginity, chastity and bashfulness are becoming a thing of the past in Europe today. The number of unwed mothers is on the increase despite of the use of pills and other contraceptives.

According to a report, 60 to 70% of girls in Sweden become mothers before marriage. The formula of "skin to skin is no sin" is taking its toll but there is hardly any feeling of shame or remorse over the end-result. Since the European nations have become addicted to wine and pork, sexual freedom with all its attendant evils has got ingrained in their culture. Consequently, homosexuality has been legalized by the British Parliament.

The Holy Qur'an has prohibited the swine-flesh, hence the Muslims would not dare touch it. The Bible has also forbidden swine-flesh, but Christians disregarded this order and started consuming it. The Europeans now proclaim that pork is a very powerful diet, rich in protein. Some of them further argue that since there is a great scarcity of food-stuff in the world and swines are available in abundant quantity, they should be consumed in the diet to overcome the food shortage. If this argument is true, why don't they use dog's meat as dogs too are available in abundance? The Europeans perhaps hate the mere mention of dog's meat in the same way as the Muslims shun pork.

Another wrong notion about swine-flesh is that its consumption lengthens life-span, although this is a pure myth and absurdity. On the contrary, people, who abstain from pork and liquor, have a longer span of life. The Muslims in Central Asia bear a testimony to this truth.

However, in the consumption of flesh Muslims are required to be selective and to distinguish between Halaal (Lawful) and Haraam (Unlawful). This step leads automatically to the deeper understanding of the need for the cultivation of a pure human nature. As blood is virtually our life-stream and whatever we consume ultimately affects the blood system, it is, therefore, necessary to exercise choice in the selection of our food and drinks as part of the requirements of the Shariah.

There are certain food and drinks specified by Allah, and His Messenger Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as forbidden. The prohibition of these food and drinks is not by any means an arbitrary action or an unwarranted decree of Allah. It is the first and foremost a divine intervention in the best interest of man and for his own benefit.

The reasons behind the Divine intervention are numerous. They are of a nature intellectual and spiritual, moral and mental, physical and economic. And the sole purpose is to show man how to develop himself according to an upright course of life in order to be a healthy unit in the structure of the family, then of society and eventually of humanity at large.

Reliable medical doctors and social scientists are able to realize how those food and drinks forbidden by Islam are harmful and destructive to the human spirit and morality as well as to the physique and moral fibre of man and to verify the benefits of Islamic legislations on the subjects.

The prohibition is based on the aim of the purification of one's nature, because food, when consumed, doesn't merely enter the stomach and intestines and become excreta. It is absorbed and metabolized into the system and circulated to all parts of the human body, including the brain, and this in no small way affects man's nature.

Take a look at the nature of the pig for example. The pig is naturally lazy and indulgent in sex, it is dirty, greedy and gluttonous. It dislikes sunlight and lacks the spirit and will to "fight." It eats almost anything, be it human excreta or anything foul and unwholesome. Amongst all animal flesh, pork is the favoured cradle of harmful germs. Pork also serves as a carrier of diseases to mankind. It is for this reason that its flesh is not suitable for consumption.

Some people have argued that the "modern pig" reared in farms is given only clean foods, therefore, its flesh should be consumable. The answer is that you may feed the pig on clean, wholesome food, but you can't change its nature. It is still a pig and will always stay so. A pig is not a plant and you cannot change it by bud-grafting.

Source:
Why Islam Forbids Pork?
By: Rashid Shamsi
(The Muslim World League Journal, Rajab 1420 - October 1999)

If locked in a room for 2 whole weeks with the only food available being pork I’m certain that Gossamer Sky and the majority here would jump on and gorge on the meat (salvation be ****ed). Its hypocrisy to think otherwise, such is our human condition.

Dr. E. Kazim. M.D. in his article "Medical aspects of forbidden foods in Islam" (July 1981 issue of Muslim Journal has described diseases carried or caused by the flesh of the swine.

He writes:

The pig is a scavenger. It is an omnivorous animal. It eats everything. There are many diseases carried from swine to man, particularly parasite infestations. Lately extensive research has been focused on senility-old age is characterized by hardening of inner lining of the blood vessels of the heart, brain etc. a process called atheroselerosis. When a clot forms, it results in coronary thrombosis or a heart attack, cerebral thrombosis or stroke.

Different dietary factors are responsible for atheroselerosis. Gross atheroma may be produced in rabbit by feeding it with cholesterol, but when you add lard (derived from hog fat) to the cholesterol, the incidence of atheroma is increased and thus you would produce coronary thrombosis, and myocardial infraction.

Besides, lard contains 2800 units of vitamin D per 100 grams and no vitamin A at all. Lately vitamin D has been held responsible for atheroma, by causing increased absorption of calcium in the blood vessels. In human beings, serum cholesterol is not dependent on the intake of cholesterol in the diet, but depends upon the proportion of animal fats in the diet, which elevates the beta-lipo protein level in the blood. Animal fats contain saturated fatty acids and these saturated fatty acids have been found to be as one of the causes of atheroma in man. Medium fat bacon contains 25% proteins and 55% fat.

According to medical research, the fat content in pork is more than any other meat (beef, mutton etc.) and it takes longer to digest. Dr. M Jaffer in an article in the Islamic Review (London) of January 1997 issue has listed 16 kinds of harmful germs, which have been discovered in pork in modern researches and the diseases, which could be caused by them. The number of patients suffering from tapeworm disease is the highest in the world among pork eating nations. Other diseases attributed to pigs are caused by tri-chinelia spirates and intestinal worms occupy first place among such nations too.

Dr. Glen Shepherd wrote the following on the dangers of eating pork in Washington Post (31 May 1952).

"One in six people in USA and Canada have germs in their muscles - trichinosis 8 from eating pork infected with trichina worms. Many people who are infected shows no symptoms. Most of those, who do have, recover slowly. Some die; some are reduced to permanent invalids. All were careless pork caters".

He continued "No one is immune from the disease and there is no cure. Neither antibiotics nor drugs or vaccines affect these tiny deadly worms. Preventing infection is the real answer."

After reading the statement of Dr. Shepherd, one can realize that there is no real guarantee of safety when eating pork that one would not be affected by trichina worm. That is why modern doctors advise three prohibitions during illness: no liquor, no pork and no smoking.

Muslims follow the divine law which is much higher than the medical advice. The Glorious Qur'an says, "So eat of the lawful and good food which Allah has provided for you, and thank the bounty of your Lord if it is Him you serve. He has forbidden for you only carrion and blood and swine-flesh and that which has been immolated in the name of any other than Allah; but he who is driven thereto, neither craving nor transgressing, Lo! then Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (16:114-115)

The above is the order from the Creator of the universe and the Supreme Law-Giver. All Muslims are under the obligation to obey it. This is a plain and straightforward answer to those, who usually ask why Muslims abstain from eating pork. Nevertheless, there is no sin, if a Muslims is forced by famine or starvation to eat pork in order to save his life.

Source:
Why Islam Forbids Pork?
By: Rashid Shamsi
(The Muslim World League Journal, Rajab 1420 - October 1999)

Where science and human brain stops thinking, Islam continues

And pretending it’s bad for your health and so on is what we call an attempt at rationalizing (If I don’t have the exact term in english forgive me) this practise is a very common defence mechanism in psychology.

Food and drink have direct effect on our health. That is why Islam has prescribed regulations about our food and drink. It lays great emphasis on our physical as well as moral health, because both of these are equally important for a healthy society. The abstention from eating pork is one of the steps taken by Islam to practise hygiene and to attain purity of soul.

Islam, for the cultivation of inner faculties, insists upon the cleanliness of body and the purification of soul through Salaat (prayers) Zikr (remembrance of Allah) and other devotional duties. Islam teaches us how to attain the virtues and how to give up bad habits because both good and bad grow in the man according to his upbringing, education and environment.

A human being has natural desires: food, sleep and sex being the three primary ones. He has also other natural emotions: sorrow, happiness, love, fear, disgust and avarice etc. Islam doesn't recommend the complete abrogation of these impulses but offers a method of controlling them through religious education and discipline.

The prohibition of eating pork in Islam is relevant in this context. There is a saying in English that "a man becomes what he eats." According to physicians and medical experts, pork is a harmful diet. Consumption of swine-flesh creates lowliness in character and destroys moral and spiritual faculties in a man.

Source:
Why Islam Forbids Pork?
By: Rashid Shamsi
(The Muslim World League Journal, Rajab 1420 - October 1999)

format_quote Originally Posted by Justufy

Dear Blackcloud, this section of the forums is called comparative religion for a reason, I think disclaimers should be issued to members around here who are too hot headed to engage in reasonable and civic discourse, If you have something of substance to the discussion well by all means pray do tell. If not I suggest you visit the other sections of this forum , plenty of which are dedicated to blind dogma, no different oppinions will be found there I give you my word.

Insulting people relating to pork and their religion and saying 'salvation is ****ed" is not civil discourse.

I am extremely aware of where I am on this forum, and I will post what I want, where I want on this forum. I just don't want to post provocative things, though.

format_quote Originally Posted by Justufy

Well im sorry but your blatant misrepresenting of my position was provocative! I never placed any restriction on yout posting rights, again this is comparative religion, opposing views are brought here.

Yes, and like I said, I do not wish to provoke people, but it seems you do.

Of course opposing views are brought to this forum, and that's good so we can learn off each other and grow in knowledge, however insulting someone personally is not constructive dialogue.

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow

GADS!!! Another pork chop thread.

Why do we seem to make understanding of why we don't eat pork. the most important issue of Islam.

There is a very simple explanation why we don't eat pork. Allaah(swt) has forbidden us from doing so.

No further reason is needed. We have no reason to justify what Allaah(swt) has ordered.

To repeat once again.


We do not eat pork, because we obey Allaah(swt).

Allaah(swt) has forbidden it to us. Do we distrust Allaah(swt) and feel we must explain why Allaah(swt) has ordered such? Do we feel we are as knowledgeable as Allaah(swt) and fully know why He has forbidden it to us? Is it of any importance for us to explain the actions of Allaah(swt)?

Seems simple enough to me, Woodrow. But, no, even in the OP's reference to Dr. Zakir Naik's, Dr. Naik was unwilling to stop with his own affirmation, "that the above is included in the Holy Qur’an should be sufficient to satisfy a Muslim as to why pork is forbidden," and felt a need to go on to list 6 more "reasons" that really have nothing to do with Islam, but are instead all about trying to convince non-Muslims to quit eating pork as well.

As I asked in my own post above, I wonder why some Muslims are so compelled to pursue this line of substantiation of their own views. Though I doubt anyone would admit to it, but it comes across as if Allah's word alone is not sufficient reason, and somehow science, health, and morality must be brought into the equation as if to vindicate Allah's commands -- which to my way of think would not need vindication if I had truly submitted myself to being Allah's slave.

But then there is also this, which I quote from what I posted earlier:

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

I've been wondering why it seemed so important to some Muslims not only to state what their particular views were with regard to the prohibition on eating pork, but why some were so strong in asserting that it applied to Christians as well.... And then I stumbled on this verse (Qur'an 5:5): "This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them."

...Unless one can show that Christians are indeed bound by the same dietary laws as are Muslims, then there would be a conflict between this verse and 5:3 which preceeded it: "Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine...."

...Of course, if one accepts that the Qur'an is divine revelation, then such internal inconsistancy could never be. So, it must be that Christians (though they live oblivious to it) are also forbidden from eating pork. Thus, it is only an act of love that some here seek to correct our misguided view as to what our Christian faith actually teaches....

Interesting thing, other than Gossemer Skye saying that she couldn't care less about Christian dietary practices, others continued to respond by defending Allah's command. For example:

format_quote Originally Posted by islamirama

The life of a man is a compound of body and soul. Anything, which is harmful for the body, hurts the soul as well. Consumption of swine-flesh reduces the feeling of shame and as such the standard of modesty. Those nations, which consume pork habitually, have a low standard of morality....

The argument continues along this line for a considerable time making many statements that I suppose are meant to substantiate the position that good pork corrupts good character. And while many people are quoted, it still comes down to justifying Allah as having made a wise decision:

...The prohibition of eating pork in Islam is relevant in this context. There is a saying in English that "a man becomes what he eats." According to physicians and medical experts, pork is a harmful diet. Consumption of swine-flesh creates lowliness in character and destroys moral and spiritual faculties in a man.

Such arguments seem to leave a lot to be desired. Beyond the ridiculousness of what you, I believe, correctly call an attempt "to justify what Allaah(swt) has ordered," I question whether even sound logic is used in the process. Some of the arguments have merit with regard to pork not being the best of all meats for one to eat based on its fattiness and inducing of cholesterol, and also the fear of diseases that can be transmitted through the meat. But such can be said about other foods besides pork, and most of these issues are neutralized by proper handling, cooking, and an overall balanced diet. So, what remains is the argument from morals. And this, again to me, seems to be one of grasping at straws.

In short the argument goes: "eat a pig, act like a pig." Now, to compare human and swine behavior is rather insulting, but I guess that most pigs aren't aware of the comparison and thus probably don't get offended. Of course, right now it is just a hypothesis. But no one has done more than just show their own subjective arguments. No actual data has been present to validate the theory. Nevertheless, the argument is made. And that leads me to wonder if one really could make the direct correspondence that some imply wherein increased pork consumption equals similar increase moral failure?

We could test for this just by asking those who believe it to be so to create a list in which they would order those countries that they believe have the lowest moral standards and see if they also happen to be the countries which eat the most pork.

So, I ask, based on the relevant moral standards of the country, who is predicated to eat the most pork: China or Brazil, Spain or Japan, Denmark or Germany, USA or Hong Kong?

format_quote Originally Posted by Airforce

From what we read in the Gospels, Jesus says nothing at all about eating or not eating pork, so where do his Christian followers get the idea from that it is permissible to eat pork?

We've actually answered the question a number of times. We don't say that you have to agree with us. But you don't even recognize that we have answered the question as to why we view it the way we do. Ultimately, I've come to interpret your lack of listening to reflect on you as a person who isn't actually interested in having his questions answered. You just want to make speeches. And of that you do a fine job. But your lack of listening has now bred a similar response from those you choose to verbally vomit upon.

As a prophet of Islam, Jesus would not have eaten pork, but it is highly unlikely, according even to the Gospel accounts themselves, that he would have done so as a Jew.

I acknowledge that Jesus was a Jew. And I agree that as a Jew, Jesus is indeed highly unlikely to have eaten pork. I would also agree that any prophet of Islam, as Islam is understood today, would also never eat pork. I reject as simply wrong the assertion that Jesus was a prophet of Islam. Though, because Jesus was a Jew, that point has no bearing on whether or not Jesus at pork.

[quote]
Why the change, then? Why do Christians eat pork, if they believe that their religion grew out of the Jewish one, which forbids it?
[quote]We have answered this many times, and I will not repeat those points again here unless you really can't recall them. But one thing that I will add, for your question perhaps shows an apparent lack of understanding regarding the relationship between Judaism and Christianity.

Christianity grew out of Judaism, but it is not the offspring of Judaism. If Christianity was just replicating Judaism, then it would indeed hold all the same points that Judaism does. But it is not attempting to do that. Nor does it apologize for not doing so. We hold that Christ did not come as a messenger, a teacher, or prophet. Though he was all of those things, that was not his primary role and mission. He came to reconcile mankind to God. Not by calling men to greater obedience, but by offering that obedience himself, offering it even to the point of laying his life down for humanity. In so doing, Jesus also opened up a new way for people to relate to God. Whereas the old covenant that God had made was specifically with the nation of Israel and was made known through certain practices that the Jews were commanded to obey as symbols of that covenantal relationship with God -- these were ceremonial laws with regard to what they could wear, what they could eat, the keeping of Sabbath, and circumcision (among others). But the Torah itself was a way of life that was meant to bring people into relationship with YHWH.

Sadly, the story of Israel's unfaithfulness tells us that Israel may have kept the ceremonial laws, but they never kept the true meaning of Torah. When Jesus came that would change. As you yourself noted, Jesus said:

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy them, but to fulfill them."

This he did. And in so doing he opened the way for a new covenant, for a new way to relate to God, and even non-Jews to be made a part of this new covenant community.

The key here is the world "new". Those who became part of this new covenant community, one that Jesus himself established as he reinterpreted the meaning of the passover meal to his disciples, was not just the continuation of the old covenant with its ceremonial rituals and practices. this new covenant community would be open to all people. And the sign of inclusion would not be that which signified inclusion in the old covenant. The sign(s) of inclusion in the new covenant would be belief, profession of faith that "Jesus is Lord", baptism in his name, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

In such a case, then, we can only presume that he left untouched the instruction about pork.

this, it is in making this presumption that you err. By fulfilling the law and instituting a new covenant, he eradicated the need for their to even be any instruction about pork.

The answer, in fact, lies not with Jesus, but with the Church which grew up after him and claimed to speak in his name.

I'll actually give you that. Of course, if Jesus authorized them to speak in his name, then their words on the matter would carry that same weight as Jesus' words.

After Jesus died, according to a book called Acts of the Apostles written by St Luke, a dispute arose among his followers about those who converted to Christianity. In the earliest days, the followers of Jesus were known as "followers of the Way." They did not consider themselves as anything other than Jews, but they followed the teachings of the Jewish rabbi, Jesus. It was only later in Antioch that they first came to be called "Christians."

Some people said that if someone wanted to be a follower of Jesus, he clearly had to become a Jew first.

"But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic Law.' The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter." (Acts 15:5)

A meeting was held in Jerusalem to discuss this. It was much more important than a debate about circumcision, since its results would determine the future of those who followed Jesus. There were basically two arguments.

The first was put forward by the Apostle James, heavily influenced by Peter. He upheld the traditional view about circumcision and observation of the Jewish Law. In other words, as Jews the followers of Jesus had to follow the Jewish laws.

Paul of Tarsus, on the other hand, said that there was no longer any need for those new to Christianity to observe the Mosaic Law and become Jews, since Christianity was something different to Judaism.

A compromise was reached. Those who were born as Jews but who had become followers of Jesus would continue to observe the laws of the Jews. Those who were converts did not have to. The prevailing idea was expressed by Peter,

"The truth I have come to realize is that God does not have favorites. Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34).

Laws particular to the Jews would no longer need to apply.

I take only a couple of small exception to your synopsis. First, you correctly note that the council in Jerusalem was precipitated by the events in Antioch. These events are first shared with the apostles and elders by Paul and Barnabas (vs. 4). They had been sharing this same story with other believers as they travelled to Jerusalemt and Luke says that "this news made all the brothers very glad" (vs. 3).

Second James did not put forth the first opinion, Peter did (vs. 7), and his argument was that to require everyone to conform to Jewish laws would be "putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our father have been able to bear." Then Barnabas and Paul spoke again.

Only when they finished did James speak up (vs. 13), and very specifically he gives his judgment "that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God" (vs. 19). He has a few things that he asks of them, but it does not include abstaining from eating pork.

Ultimately, the apostles sent a message back to the believers not only in Antioch, but also Cilicia. It informed them that those who had previously arrived their encouraging Gentiles to become Jews had done so "without [the apostles] authorization" (vs. 24). And that all that they, the apostles, were not asking them to do is "to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality" (vs. 29).

But on the whole you are right when you say:

So, you see, it was not Jesus who changed the rule about eating pork.

It was in fact the Church.

But you are wrong when you go one to say,

He was quite clear that the Law said you must not do so.

Actually, he wasn't. If he had ever said, "you must continue to eat pork as part of this new covenant community, and anyone who joins this new covenant community, even if they were not previously a Jews must abide by all of our Jewish laws to remain in it", well that would have been clear. But he didn't. He told his disciples that he was sending them the Holy Spirit. That this Spirit would guide them into all truth. And as the apostles said in their letter that they wrote to the believers in Antioch, "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you" (vs. 28), and for Christians hearing that from the Holy Spirit is tantamount to hearing it from Jesus himself.

The rest of your argument becomes meaningless, for we accept what the Spirit has said, and we aren't going to change it either for the arguments of man nor because of a book someone claims God gave him 700 years later, that contradicts what the Spirit has already shared with his Church.


Now, I know many Christians who don't eat pork. They don't do it because of specious arguments made from the standpoint of Islam. Sadly, a few do it because a Joel Osteen attempts to lead them back under Law. But the primary reason that they abstain from pork is another biblical truth, our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit; therefore, we need to take good care of them. And many have become convinced that one way to do that is to abstain from pork. But those who don't make that choice are not looked down upon, because Christian accountablity is to the guidance of the Spirit and not to the Law.

Peace.

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow

GADS!!! Another pork chop thread.

Why do we seem to make understanding of why we don't eat pork. the most important issue of Islam.

There is a very simple explanation why we don't eat pork. Allaah(swt) has forbidden us from doing so.

No further reason is needed. We have no reason to justify what Allaah(swt) has ordered.

To repeat once again.


We do not eat pork, because we obey Allaah(swt).

Allaah(swt) has forbidden it to us. Do we distrust Allaah(swt) and feel we must explain why Allaah(swt) has ordered such? Do we feel we are as knowledgeable as Allaah(swt) and fully know why He has forbidden it to us? Is it of any importance for us to explain the actions of Allaah(swt)?

I agree! There is simply no need to justify it with such nonsense as 'pork causes every disease discovered' or 'pigs are filthy, therefore the people who eat pork are filthy!' It's completely ridiculous how one would desperately and generally unfruitfully try and search for any other reason as to the prohibition of pork other than 'God commands it'.

In the first place, we need to recognize that, according to the Christian Gospels, there were pigs in Palestine at the time of Jesus (peace be upon him). In one of the Gospel accounts of Jesus healing a young man possessed with devils, Jesus commands the devils to leave the man and to go, instead, into a head of pigs.

In the story, the pigs then rush off a nearby cliff and are killed. In Saint Luke's story of the Prodigal Son, too, Jesus talks about a young man who goes off with his share of the inheritance and wastes it on wine, women and song, until he is so penniless that he has to take a job looking after pigs.

So clearly there were pigs around. What were they doing in Palestine, when Jews do not eat pork? Who were they for? In fact, both the Romans and the Greeks used to eat pork as a delicacy, so we must assume that the pigs were bred either for export or to feed the Romans who were occupying Palestine at the time.

You inability to learn is surely a worrying development in human psychology, for I and other members have explained this to you on numerous occassions!