Islamic law (sharia) deals not only
with the correct deportment of the believer before God and the proper behaviour
to others in the community and beyond. In a few scattered but repeated verses,
the Qur’an lays out a simple ‘dietary programme’. Believers are enjoined to
‘eat of what your Lord has given you and render thanks to Him’ (Q 34:15) and
‘eat of what is lawful and wholesome on the earth and do not walk in Satan’s
footsteps for he is your inveterate foe’ (Q 2:168). Classes of prohibited foods
are briefly mentioned with little elaboration for ‘(God) has only forbidden you
carrion, blood, pig’s meat and animals over which any name other than God’s has
been invoked’ (Q 2:173).
The Qur’an term for Carrion, one of the prohibited categories mentioned in the above verse. It is worth emphasising the Qur’an’s repeated exception to the consumption of forbidden flesh: if believers found themselves in circumstances of dire necessity and life was endangered or in cases of coercion, then it was permitted to eat meat that was otherwise illicit. For example, the dog was regarded as fundamentally unclean and therefore forbidden to eat in Islamic law; moreover, the dog was in popular belief, of demonic origin. Yet early Arabic sources record that famine drove some tribes to eat dog flesh while later, in parts of North Africa, such deplorable consumption was even said to be habitual. Food taboos also acted as emblematic demarcation signs separating Islam from the two other so-called Abrahamic faiths, Judaism and Christianity. The camel, for example, was perfectly licit for Muslims and in Morocco was regarded as a repository of sacred blessings (baraka) and so to eat its flesh was an act of faith. Jews, however, considered the camel an abomination as its hoof is not cloven. In Islam the pig is judged to bear a major impurity and its flesh is thus forbidden, a prohibition inherited from the Hebrew Bible. Christians, by contrast, were released from this by Christ’s abolition of the prohibition.
The Qur’an term for Carrion, one of the prohibited categories mentioned in the above verse. It is worth emphasising the Qur’an’s repeated exception to the consumption of forbidden flesh: if believers found themselves in circumstances of dire necessity and life was endangered or in cases of coercion, then it was permitted to eat meat that was otherwise illicit. For example, the dog was regarded as fundamentally unclean and therefore forbidden to eat in Islamic law; moreover, the dog was in popular belief, of demonic origin. Yet early Arabic sources record that famine drove some tribes to eat dog flesh while later, in parts of North Africa, such deplorable consumption was even said to be habitual. Food taboos also acted as emblematic demarcation signs separating Islam from the two other so-called Abrahamic faiths, Judaism and Christianity. The camel, for example, was perfectly licit for Muslims and in Morocco was regarded as a repository of sacred blessings (baraka) and so to eat its flesh was an act of faith. Jews, however, considered the camel an abomination as its hoof is not cloven. In Islam the pig is judged to bear a major impurity and its flesh is thus forbidden, a prohibition inherited from the Hebrew Bible. Christians, by contrast, were released from this by Christ’s abolition of the prohibition.
By virtue of the verses (V, 6–7/4–5)
“The good things are permitted you”, we find included in the chapter of what is
halal those animals whose flesh is esteemed for its flavour (chickens, sheep,
etc.); conversely, the peacock and other animals are declared haram because of
the bad quality of their flesh. The habit of consuming unpleasant food, causes
animals possessing it to be classed among those which are haram, scarab beetles
as an example. In this field there is a certain amount of indecision and not a
little subtlety: the stork for example, which would be halal, is regarded as haram
because it eats snakes. Snakes themselves are halal, but eating them classes
the stork among the carnivores.
According to which all carnivores are forbidden whether they are mammals equipped with fangs or birds provided with claws; but it is not universally accepted, and the Mālikīs permit the eating of the flesh of birds of prey, while the Awzāīs consider that no bird is haram. All the Juris consults regard the cat, the dog, the wolf, the crocodile etc. as haram, and travellers report with disgust any cases of eating dogs which they witness; the fox is generally considered as lawful, the jackal and the wild cat are the subject of disagreement, and the hyena is lawful, except for the Maliki’s, who pronounce it makrūh. (The Prophet, questioned on the lawfulness of the hyena, is said to have replied: “But who eats the hyena?”).
The classification of the elephant is disputed, for although it is herbivore, it possesses means of defence which are termed nāb in Arabic. According to another part of the Prophet it is said to have forbidden the killing of bees (because God made a revelation to them), ants (for the same reason), frogs (because they were close to God when the Throne was upon the water and because their croaking is a praise to God), hoopoes (because of the part which one of them played with Solomon), and finally the Éurad (magpie) which was the first to fast; it follows that it is also forbidden to eat the flesh of these animals, although opinions do not altogether agree on this.
Swallows and bats are the subjects of the same prohibition because the Prophet forbade the killing of them for similar reasons, but the Juris consults are far from agreeing on the authenticity of the adis about them. Conversely, certain animals are haram because the Prophet ordered them to be killed for their impious conduct; these fawāsi are the kite, the black and white crow, the scorpion, the mouse and the dog; the kite and the dog are already included in another prohibition; the other varieties of crow are lawful, while the prohibition concerning the mouse extends to all rodents with the exception of the jerboa.
According to which all carnivores are forbidden whether they are mammals equipped with fangs or birds provided with claws; but it is not universally accepted, and the Mālikīs permit the eating of the flesh of birds of prey, while the Awzāīs consider that no bird is haram. All the Juris consults regard the cat, the dog, the wolf, the crocodile etc. as haram, and travellers report with disgust any cases of eating dogs which they witness; the fox is generally considered as lawful, the jackal and the wild cat are the subject of disagreement, and the hyena is lawful, except for the Maliki’s, who pronounce it makrūh. (The Prophet, questioned on the lawfulness of the hyena, is said to have replied: “But who eats the hyena?”).
The classification of the elephant is disputed, for although it is herbivore, it possesses means of defence which are termed nāb in Arabic. According to another part of the Prophet it is said to have forbidden the killing of bees (because God made a revelation to them), ants (for the same reason), frogs (because they were close to God when the Throne was upon the water and because their croaking is a praise to God), hoopoes (because of the part which one of them played with Solomon), and finally the Éurad (magpie) which was the first to fast; it follows that it is also forbidden to eat the flesh of these animals, although opinions do not altogether agree on this.
Swallows and bats are the subjects of the same prohibition because the Prophet forbade the killing of them for similar reasons, but the Juris consults are far from agreeing on the authenticity of the adis about them. Conversely, certain animals are haram because the Prophet ordered them to be killed for their impious conduct; these fawāsi are the kite, the black and white crow, the scorpion, the mouse and the dog; the kite and the dog are already included in another prohibition; the other varieties of crow are lawful, while the prohibition concerning the mouse extends to all rodents with the exception of the jerboa.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar