This is the best sermon about why pork ( …
This is the best sermon about why pork (and shellfish) are haram I have ever heard – by Joel Osteen, evangelical Christian pastor in Houston.
-
aziz
Reply
Islam News @ NYT- Lady Gaga Denied Permit to Perform in Indonesia: Protests from hard-line Muslim groups result in the cancellation of Lady Gaga's concert in Indonesia.
- Saudi Arabia Seeks Union of Monarchies in Region: The conservative monarchy wants to form a single federation with its five Persian Gulf neighbors to better resist the waves of change sweeping the Middle East.
- Bowling Alley’s 12 Lanes Lead to Another Afghanistan: The story of Strikers, the country’s only bowling alley, seems to be that rarest of things, an Afghan good news story.
-
Would you like your own blog hosted at Talk Islam? Email the admin at "salaam at talk islam dot info" !
Talk Islam uses Wordpress MU and the Prologue theme by Automattic
DISCLAIMER: Please see the About Talk Islam page for fair use issues and our privacy policy.
DONATE: Talk Islam needs your support!
Ameer abu ibn Ameer, 
razib 4:44 pm on February 7, 2009 Permalink |
1) is shellfish haram? i really doubt it for muslims (i’ve googled this and there’s some debate about it), i have uncles in the tableegh who eat that stuff up. it’s all nice for a bedouin to think shellfish is haram (just like frankly they can say they won’t eat swine, since there’s no f**king way swine would flourish in the desert), but bengali muslims will all convert to hinduism if you tell him he can’t have his shrimp
2) the crap about toxins is a joke dude. perhaps it has a symbolic valence, but biologically it’s total new age bullshit (i’ve heard new agers tell me that sort of stuff almost verbatim, and osteen is pretty notorious for christianizing their talking points). ruminants have incredible digestive systems because grass is very difficult to digest. in fact, mammals don’t do the digestion of cellulose based material, our gut flora do. so ruminants have the most massive numbers of commensalist microbes in ratio to their number of cells compared to other mammals.
3) there is some general truth about eating “low on the food chain.” but with pigs it’s a simple rule: garbage in, garbage out.
razib 4:56 pm on February 7, 2009 Permalink |
btw, i don’t get the whole symbolic issues with animals eating crap (as opposed to real public health, e.g., infectious disease, etc.). i mean, for thousands of years one of the primary fertilizers for crops was manure.
Melimeli 5:09 pm on February 7, 2009 Permalink |
1) cows have four stomachs, which are designed to digest grass, not the corn and other unnatural substances they are fed on american farms to make them fatter, faster. the majority of the cattle in this country are dosed with bovine growth hormone and massive amounts of antibiotics, as well as ground up bits of other animals (including pigs), which can lead to mad cow disease. (if you think this practice has stopped just because a few slaughterhouses have been caught at it, think again.)
2) what does the amount of time the food is in any animal’s stomach have to do with when it gets slaughtered? slaughterhouses do not wait until the animal’s digestive tract is clean before killing it (which is where all of that e. coli that we are constantly being warned about comes from).
3) turkeys and chickens are fed so many drugs, so many antibiotics, so many growth hormones, all in the quest for more breast meat, that they end up being too top heavy to even walk. not that they are allowed to walk, because they are packed into cages, side by side, so close together that their beaks and feet have to be cut off so they don’t eat each other (yes, birds will cannibalize other birds, especially under conditions of malnutrition and extreme stress)
i don’t disagree about pigs and shellfish being bottom-feeding scavengers, but if this guy is going to preach about dirty animals, then he should be preaching about all of the horrible, filthy, disgusting ways that animals are farmed – actually, tormented is a better word – in this country. all of the antibiotics and other drugs fed to “animals that are ok in the bible” are getting into our systems just as surely as whatever it is a pig has eaten. and, i’m pretty sure that torturing animals is haram.
abunoor 5:29 pm on February 7, 2009 Permalink |
Shellfish are completely halal in all madhaib other than the Hanafi.
I find these type of explanations, while almost always well-meaning, to be bad religion (at least for Muslims, perhaps not for Christians who do not have the same understanding of religious law.)
Pork is haraam because God forbids it in the Qur’an. Speculating on the wisdom behind its prohibition is not usually helpful. People can see that many people eat pork and do not get sick from it…if people want to make health arguments that is a different issue, but they should be clearly separated from fiqh arguments.
So, again, since Osteen is not trying to really make a fiqh argument it may be fine for him, but I wouldn’t respect a Muslim who delivered a similar speech…it would show me he didn’t understand the deen very well and that he likely had an inferiority complex.
PI.info 7:01 pm on February 7, 2009 Permalink |
Fascinating. Thanks for posting this. I agree with Abu Noor that the health argument is irrelevant. The argument about garbage-eating pigs applies equally to chickens. Chickens will eat anything, including each other.
Lawrence of Arabia 7:36 pm on February 7, 2009 Permalink |
I think that is the first time I have ever heard a Christian pastor suggest that there ARE food rules for Christians (apart from some wesleyian types coming out against alcohol. but even that case is not based on divine edict). that was a little weird.
Umm Yasmin 5:13 am on February 8, 2009 Permalink |
“I wouldn’t respect a Muslim who delivered a similar speech…it would show me he didn’t understand the deen very well and that he likely had an inferiority complex.”
I’d be fine with such a khutbah – so long as he prefaced it with “we avoid it in obedience to the command of Allah, subhana wa t’ala, but for the satisfaction of your curiosity, here is interesting some information about why pork is bad for your body” etc.
Rational arguments are fine – we make rational arguments about the destruction that alcohol wreaks in our society, why not a similar approach with other food laws?
BTW That is an *amazing* sermon. We all take food laws for granted, but Joel Osteen is the pastor of a Southern American Baptist church!! They don’t do fiqh!!! And pork is a staple in that area. Seriously, he’s going to get himself excommunicated.
PPS: Shellfish are prohibited in the Ja’fari madhhab, which is probably why they are prohibited in one opinion in the Hanafi madhhab.
Tariq Nelson 6:35 am on February 8, 2009 Permalink |
I know Sunni (Hanafi) Muslims that will not eat shrimp or catfish on the grounds that they are both scavengers.
Umm Yasmin 7:50 am on February 8, 2009 Permalink |
I’d heard it was coz the little critters can walk themselves out of the water.
Muse 1:48 pm on February 8, 2009 Permalink |
As far as I know, shellfish is deemed “mukrooh” (disliked) and not haram in Hanafi fiqh, so one is rewarded for avoiding it but not blame-worthy for eating it. Otherwise, as Razib said above, there might be a Bengali uprising.
abunoor 3:51 pm on February 8, 2009 Permalink |
Or, they’d just have to become Shafi’i.
Muse 5:36 pm on February 8, 2009 Permalink |
Wudu rules are too strict in Shafi’i madhab. Isn’t it the case that you have to perform wudu even if you touch your wife/husband? I’d be performing wudu all day.
Dan 6:48 pm on February 8, 2009 Permalink |
I think its unrelated man/woman but im not sure.. in any case it doesnt strike me as that big a deal as most people I know end up doing wudu before prayer anyway
aziz 8:27 pm on February 8, 2009 Permalink |
I have to disagree that the health justifications are irrelevant. As Osteen himself said, he chooses not to eat in order to honor God. However, that doesnt mean that health issues are totally irrelevant. Science, biology and nutrition are all part of God’s creation after all. I think its imposing a false dichotomy on knowledge to argue that we shoudl just STFU and do what we are told without trying to understand some pof the reasons why.
Islam is submit. Not, “submit then shut up”. Rather, “submit, then inquire”.
Muse 8:33 pm on February 8, 2009 Permalink |
I’m going to go on a tangent, but this is something I have a hard time understanding, so I hope ya’ll will indulge me. I don’t understand how you can submit and then inquire, since the inquiry will necessary be circular – how can you accept the truth about something and then inquire whether or not its the truth? Shouldn’t the inquiry happen before submission?
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 8:41 pm on February 8, 2009 Permalink |
Aziz, I’m not totally unsympathetic to your argument, but I’m mainly unsympathetic. The problem is, there are food products that are less healthy to eat than pork, does this make them haram? If there are certain types of pork that are not unhealthy or if there is a certain amount of pork in moderation that does not harm your health (both of which are obviously true statements) than the benefits of the health analysis become unclear to me.
Again, it is all well and good (and encouraged by Islam) to eat healthy but this should be completely separated from the fiqh issue of certain animals being prohibited.
My problem is I don’t see the benefit. I think the fact that some people seem to have their faith bolstered when their own pseudo-scientific theories line up with what the faith says to be, as I indicated above, possibly (though certainly not always) a sign of an inferiority complex. And I worry what will happen to the person who finds out his particular pseudo-scientific theory for why pork is prohibited turns out to be incorrect. Will this then weaken his faith?
I honestly don’t get it. In general for those who are into it, as long as they are clear about the fiqh issue, then alhamdulillaah for them. I just don’t get it, and don’t find it at all compelling, to be honest.
Here’s Elijah Muhammad’s take on why Pork should not be eaten:
aziz 10:26 pm on February 8, 2009 Permalink |
if sumission is contingent on your approval, then it’s not submission, right? thats the essence of “faith” – you accept a-priori that certain things are the way they are, and then after that, you can explore within that context with all doors open.
You could argue an analogy to learning math. I could try to “prove” to you that 2+2 = 4, invoking the completeness of the reals and some other topological concepts (with an interesting digression towards Cantor, but I, uh, digress). Or I can just tell you in grade school, 2+2=4, and you better memorize it or you fail. Accept it, an dthen you get to progress onwards to understanding calculus.
why should that be so? the health reason may be part of the reason that such foods are haraam, but theres no reason that it is the sole or even main reason. Allah knows best.
abunoor 9:12 am on February 9, 2009 Permalink |
This is my only point Aziz. As long as the discussion is carried out with this in mind — knowing that we don’t really know the reason and being okay with that..then it’s fine. I think, however, especially in a post-religious law society, this message often gets confused in the transmission. For example, if you ask many Muslim youth why do we fast in Ramadan, you will get the answer to develop sympathy for the poor or feel what the poor go through, because they’ve heard many people talk about this as a possible benefit of fasting, and it’s one that resonates with the secular mindset. Of course, in reality in this case we do know why we fast, it’s stated explicitly in the Qur’an that we fast to gain taqwa.
In any event, I don’t think we disagree here, Aziz, we just have a little different flavor. A lot of it is related to the entire style of someone like Osteen who is in general trying to combine a Christian sensibility with a kind of self-improvement philosophy focused on “Living your best life now.” I have mixed emotions about this approach. (I really mean mixed, there is stuff I admire about it, and stuff that I have problems with).
Lawrence of Arabia 10:45 am on February 9, 2009 Permalink |
legal positivism is unsatisfying in any form, even when it is God who is supposedly laying down the law. Human beings are going to inquire after the reason why we do things. A law, for which one is provided no other reason than power or authority is going to be perceived as, at best, arational, and uncompelling, and at worst irrational. In either case, the law will appear (in differing degrees) dehumanizing because it fails to address them as rational and free beings.
On the other hand, in response to Muse, inquiry always happens within a tradtion. it is never a neutral inquiry. You are already inquiring after something you know or desire (otherwise there would be no inquiry at all). You have already submitted to its call. The autonomous inquirer, who exercises a free rationality before agreeing to submit to anything is just as mythical and inhuman (because it tries to displace humanity from its existence as something historical) as the autonomous law to which one is required to submit. Tradition is the basis for all inquiry. The goal is to transform the tradition into something that one receives by fate, into something free and rational, something that is one’s own.
aziz 10:49 am on February 9, 2009 Permalink |
For example, if you ask many Muslim youth why do we fast in Ramadan, you will get the answer to develop sympathy for the poor or feel what the poor go through, because they’ve heard many people talk about this as a possible benefit of fasting, and it’s one that resonates with the secular mindset. Of course, in reality in this case we do know why we fast, it’s stated explicitly in the Qur’an that we fast to gain taqwa.
true, and I agree we arent really disagreeing – I think we can agree that teh above isn’t a bad thing if that “wordly” rationlization helps the muslim actually do the fast. The taqwa part takes time to cultivate, but repetaition helps. Thats why I am positive about Osteen’s sermon; it’s potentially a catalyst towards action that is harder to justify on esoteric theologic grounds alone. we are only human.
abunoor 4:12 pm on February 9, 2009 Permalink |
LoA,
I agree that some humans will always have a desire to ask why.
Aziz,
Alhamdulillah if it helps people to fast while developing taqwa. My mindset is just so opposite to that that I think I have a hard time identifying with it. (This may have something to do with being a ‘convert,’ I have to think more about that.)
You could have talked to me until you were blue in the face about health or bugs or whatever but I wouldn’t have given up my ham and cheese subs. On the other hand, as soon as I accepted Islam, even though I didn’t know how to pray and wouldn’t claim I had ‘taqwa,’ I was never tempted to have pork again because I knew it was haram according to the word of God.
aziz 4:21 pm on February 9, 2009 Permalink |
LoA I love how you articulate things so clearly. You have more succinct insight than many shaikh I know
abunoor, i think that the conversion experience may be relevant. Growing up within the traqdition as I have, these things are sometimes not discernable from culture, so we tend to be more casual in our philosophy about why we do things. There is a social inertia to these acts of piety rather than a willful exertion. As a convert, you have literally had to reason yoruself into the faith, and in so doing you have had to essentially mature at a rate far faster than the native born muslim.
abunoor 4:52 pm on February 9, 2009 Permalink |
LoA,
I wanted to add a little clarification to my agreement with you. I think while humans will have a desire to ask why and will not be satisfied (at least some won’t) with reliance only on human authority.
I disagree that the same is true for divine authority. Divine legal systems break down not because people have trouble obeying God without knowing why God said this or that, but because people stop believing that the scriptures or clerics that purport to say what God is ordering are actually relating the divine judgment.
Health arguments about why we don’t eat pork may satisfy someone as a rationalization who lives in a secular world and wants to feel that they don’t look silly in the eyes of their neighbors, but if someone does not accept the divine authority it will not satisfy them in the end. What I am getting at is ‘because God says so in the Qur’an and here is the verse and here are the hadith on the subject is an argument for likely to satisfy the human yearning to know why than something which attempts to examine the issue as if there were no scripture and prove it would still make ‘rational’ sense to not eat pork. This will obviously not convince most rational people, as most rational people who do not accept this prohibition as a religious teaching, do not adopt it as a health one.
I hope you see what I’m getting at. Anyways, I think we’ve belabored the pork issue, but (my new topic for discussion moved to a new post)
PI.info 12:09 am on February 10, 2009 Permalink |
Just came across this article and it made me think of the thread here. Interesting facts:
Ameer abu ibn Ameer 3:58 pm on June 25, 2009 Permalink |
Abu Noor and others have already hit the nail on the head: it’s haram because it is haram. We must do what Allah demands of us, whether we like it or not and whether we think it “makes sense” or not. We do what we are told by our Rabb because he is the lord of the universe and I’m pretty sure we’re in no position to argue with him hehe!
We’re just fortunate that Allah in his infinite mercy has given us rules that we also believe to be good for our health. Allah could have chosen any rules, any obligations, any prohibitions. Take the example of Prophet Ibrahim (as) who was commanded to kill his own son; he was going to do it because it was a fard from his malik, not because it was “healthy”.
However, since we’re all speculating, it seems just as likely that pigs are Allah’s most favorite animal aside from humans, and hence he doesn’t want to see them eaten, much as I save the chocolate cake (favorite) for after I’ve finished my vegetables. That seems like as good an explanation for their “haramness” as anything else. The health benefits, or lack thereof are just a bonus that we’ve been blessed with.
Even if we could genetically engineer a totally clean pig that was full of the best vitamins, minerals and tasted like chocolate cake, it would still be just as haram.
Pretty Pink Unicorns 9:02 pm on June 25, 2009 Permalink |
mmmm, chocolate cake