-
Identifying Khabeeth Animals
Some people don’t find lions or tigers disgusting. If I’m frank even I don’t really see anything wrong for eating. Maybe that’s because I’ve never been offered it. Is this an issue of experience or what?
-
32 Replies
-
Identifying Khabeeth Animals
updated 3 years, 5 months ago
4 Members
·
32
Replies
-
Please refer to the video below from 29:21 to 30:58
-
But the principle of darindagi is not in the Quran is it? This is taking a major part of religion just from hadith
-
So you’re forgetting all the previous discussions we’ve had in the past
-
Oops maybe I am. But am I wrong to say this principle is derived from ahadith? If it were not for ahadith then lions don’t really induce the ‘yuck’ reflex in many people.
The reason lions aren’t eaten doesn’t seem to be because they are deemed gross. Rather their farming logistics are unfavourable both in the modern and ancient world. In the modern world you have to feed them so much in the ancient world you can’t really hunt a lion that easily.
-
Hadith is a simple explanation of ‘Bahimatul-Anam’
-
Sure 5:1 says bahimtul anaam are halal but that doesn’t mean all predators are now haraam
-
‘Bahimatul-Anam’ does not draw a line but helps in understanding distinction between tayyebaat and khabaees w.r.t animals. The line has been drawn at Tayyebaat and Khabaees with most of the distinction left to nature of human beings. Some level of subjectivity that could’ve arisen based on this principle, has been helped out through ‘Bahimatul-Anam’ wording.
-
Hmmm this is a good point. Because you’re drawing a parallel between bahimatul anaam and tayyibaat if I’ve understood correctly.
That would logically follow that non bahimatul anaam are mostly, if not all khabaith.
Makes sense overall I guess
-
-
Al-Ma’idah – 5:1
Arabic
يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓاْ أَوۡفُواْ بِٱلۡعُقُودِۚ أُحِلَّتۡ لَكُم بَهِيمَةُ ٱلۡأَنۡعَٰمِ إِلَّا مَا يُتۡلَىٰ عَلَيۡكُمۡ غَيۡرَ مُحِلِّى ٱلصَّيۡدِ وَأَنتُمۡ حُرُمٌۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يَحۡكُمُ مَا يُرِيدُ
I did some more thinking and if we look at 5:1 the verse seems to be more talking about hajj that you can eat livestock but you shouldn’t hunt.
Rather than a distinction between tayyib and khabeeth.
So wouldn’t this mean the Hadith is still and extra Quranic definition of khabeeth?
-
If the intent was only the mentioning of prohibition of hunting, then there was no need to mention this statement which people already knew regarding meat eating. The principle statement has been given with exception of hunting during ahram and pointing towards further explanation relating to ‘Bahimatul-Anam’ starting from verse 3.
Please also refer to the video below from 29:01 to 41:35
-
Before I continue with my other qs- what ayah is being used to show that khabaith are even haraam in the context of food?
-
یٰٓاَیُّھَا الَّذِیْنَ اٰمَنُوْا، کُلُوْا مِنْ طَیِِّبٰتِ مَا رَزَقْنٰکُمْ وَاشْکُرُوْا لِلّٰہِ ، اِنْ کُنْتُمْ اِیَّاہُ تَعْبُدُوْنَ. اِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ عَلَیْکُمُ الْمَیْتَۃَ وَالدَّمَ وَلَحْمَ الْخِنْزِیْرِ وَمَآ اُھِلَّ بِہٖ لِغَیْرِ اللّٰہِ.(۲: ۱۷۲۔ ۱۷۳)
’’ایمان والو، (یہ اگر اپنی اِن بدعتوں کو نہیں چھوڑتے تو اِنھیں اِن کے حال پر چھوڑو، اور) جو پاکیزہ چیزیں ہم نے تمھیں عطا فرمائی ہیں، اُنھیں (بغیر کسی تردد کے) کھاؤ اور اللہ ہی کے شکرگزار بنو، اگر تم اُسی کی پرستش کرنے والے ہو۔اُس نے تو تمھارے لیے صرف مردار اور خون اورسؤر کا گوشت اور غیراللہ کے نام کا ذبیحہ حرام ٹھیرایا ہے۔ ‘
-
This doesn’t say all khabaith are haraam. This ayah uses the word إنما which means only. This ayah itself says Allah has only made these things haraam
-
Tayyibaat are Halal which means Khabees are Haram. ‘Innama’ is used as Hasar as explained by Ghamidi Sahab to you personally
-
Ji haan abhi dekha mein ne phir se lol
-
Tayyibaat are halal but this doesn’t necessitate that khabaith are haraam. Why would you think that?
-
Tayyibaat and khabaeeth are two categories between which tayyibaat have been declared halal, this logically follows khabaeeth are haram, there is no need to mention this fact separately.
-
Then please help me understand the nazm of surah makkah. It seems weird that ayah 1 gives a general ruling and then it goes to hajj then back to general food laws then later on back to hajj.
It would make more sense that ayah 1 and 2 are about hajj and the first ayah is just saying eat your livestock but don’t hunt and then it goes on to hajj.
Remember my basic question is does the Quran support that predators are khabaith that’s what I’m asking
-
I think Hajj related directives are a supplement to the main directives related to dietary law.
-
Yes but isn’t it weird that half of ayah one is related to food the other half hajj then all of ayah 2 is hajj then 3 onwards goes into food and wudu etc.
Wouldn’t it be neater that 1 and 2 are purely about hajj then 3 onwards other laws?
-
But the primary subject is dietary law, and within that subject, dietary law related to Hajj was also mentioned.
-
Ok. Good hypothesis. Let’s see if it works:
Al-Ma’idah – 5:1
Arabic
يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓاْ أَوۡفُواْ بِٱلۡعُقُودِۚ أُحِلَّتۡ لَكُم بَهِيمَةُ ٱلۡأَنۡعَٰمِ إِلَّا مَا يُتۡلَىٰ عَلَيۡكُمۡ غَيۡرَ مُحِلِّى ٱلصَّيۡدِ وَأَنتُمۡ حُرُمٌۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يَحۡكُمُ مَا يُرِيدُ
Al-Ma’idah – 5:96
Arabic
أُحِلَّ لَكُمۡ صَيۡدُ ٱلۡبَحۡرِ وَطَعَامُهُۥ مَتَٰعًا لَّكُمۡ وَلِلسَّيَّارَةِۖ وَحُرِّمَ عَلَيۡكُمۡ صَيۡدُ ٱلۡبَرِّ مَا دُمۡتُمۡ حُرُمًاۗ وَٱتَّقُواْ ٱللَّهَ ٱلَّذِىٓ إِلَيۡهِ تُحۡشَرُونَ
Both of these ayaat have two clauses.
Ayah 1 has 1. Livestock halal 2. Hunting haraam.
Ayah 96 has 1. Seafood halal 2. Hunting haraam.
Now both of these also have the clause ‘whilst you are under ihram’. (1 is just a regular ism whereas 96 is a haal but I don’t have enough knowldge in Arabic to know the difference, maybe @Irfan76 can help to know the nuance إن شاء الله).
Now you are saying that the clause of ‘whilst being in ihram’ applies only to the second directive in ayah 1- that all livestock is halal- and hunting is only haraam whilst in ihram.
So you should say the same for ayah 96- that all seafood is halal- and Hunting is haraam in ihram.
That would be the consistent outcome of what I have understood form your argument. I disagree with it and think both clauses come under the same condition.
-
The Asians(Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Thai Etc.) eat all kind of insects, Cockroaches, Bats, Rats, Snakes, Frogs, Cats, Dogs etc. They don’t find it disgusting in the least bit. Do you see anything wrong with that?
-
I do see things wrong with that. But not lion necessarily.
-
Lion like a Cat and Dog is a Meat eater Jungli Vicious Carnivore that attacks and eats while remaining hidden or camouflaged. It belongs to the same group or species as a Cat. I don’t understand why for you Cat gives a disgusted feeling and a Lion doesn’t?
-
Lol because of my fitrah 😂😂.
But seriously I’m not thinking logically acha yaar yeh jaan war lese khana kahta hai?
I just look at the animal and think would i eat? When I see lion the answer is: Yeah sure why not.
People say oh humans don’t generally eat lion. Well yeah ofc statistics of farming would be unbearable.
-
are you saying your fitrah is irrational and illogical. Well than you are unable to determine & understand your exact fitrah anyways. which is why you need religious guidance bro to come to a right conclusion. Allah created us humans and he knows our nature the best. We should follow his guidance. 🙂
-
Where does it say in his guidance that lions are haraam?
-
-
Human beings never showed natural inclination to eat lions or even dogs as a tradition, rather they do feel disgusted the idea of eating animals like these. Digression from this known established fact of mainstream humankind is found only in certain individuals and certain nations (like Chinese). Man is capable to go against his nature. If eating such animals were that confusing, we might have found this habit of eating them frequently in other nations too, but it is not the case.
Digression in specific individuals and specific nations from the mainstream is itself an evidence that they are the ones who digressed or deviated from the mainstream. Instead of making them a criterion to nullify the mainstream unanimous habit of rest of the humankind, the correct approach is the consider them wrong for not following the ways of mainstream.
having said that, we find that there are two types of animals, carnivores and herbivores. God told that herbivores are halal, which explicitly means that carnivores are haram. The reason seems to be their being predictors or beast.
you see, man got confused only in the case of pig, not about other beasts. That is why Allah gave its verdict that it is haram too because it is carnivores too.
-
I think this is a causation correlation issue. For example one could turn around and say that we don’t eat lions and lizards because they are hard to catch. The logistics of hunting a lion in the olden days would be so difficult- as would the farming of them en Masse nowadays since they are not domesticated.
As for herbivores being halal- I don’t think the ayah says that. Read this:
-
-
not logic but the study of habit counts. catching a rabbit is difficult too but people hunt and eat them, but no hunter eats lions after he hunts it (habitually)
The verse says that the grazing livestock is halal. no it is the habit found in mankind that they don’t feel like to eat horse and donkey etc.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
