الله حي

This is a song I had never heard before by al Sheikh Imam. I love it, imbued with a deep spirituality and a dignified resistance.

.

The Halal Meat Industry - a useless and illogical fad

For some time now I have been pondering over an issue that has gained increasing prominence in the news. The issue is that of 'Halal' meat and the alleged obligation that a Muslim should only eat such meat and none other, mean ing that your Waitrose, Sainsbury's or Harrod's butcher is completely off the menu and you should only buy meat that has been certified by one of the several Halal Food authorities that have appeared over the past few years. The rise in demand for this meet is such that even the Tesco's chain of supermarkets is now selling Halal meats in select stores. In fact, Halal is now becoming quite big business across Europe as its population of Muslims increases. There is also something else which is often overlooked in commentary on the subject, and that is that this whole "Halal" business is completely new, even to many Muslims. From a personal point of view I had never heard it be as big an issue as I did when I first came to the United Kingdom. Rather, it was always more of a concern for Muslims I met from South Asia than it was amongst Muslims I knew in the Arab community, even those who prayed regularly and fasted. This made me curious to find the actual basis of this strongly held belief.

On deciding to focus more on my spirituality, I had initially decided to avoid non-Halal meat out of precaution but in recent months I have had more time to contemplate and think over what this whole issue means. To my surprise, I found that it is mostly nonsense-on-stilts, and in my investigations I could find no compelling reason why I should eat meat from livestock slaughtered according to these 'Halal' guidelines and not others that have been killed just as hygienically and with a regard to animal welfare and standards of health.

I was particularly concerned with what the Qur'an and the Hadith had to say concerning this matter and took care to see how the most prominent Halal Food authorities in the United Kingdom justified their concern for Halal slaughtered meat. The first was the Halal Food Authority, based in the UK. I downloaded their Brief Guidelines in a PDF file to see what the origins of Halal are. In it, I found the justifications for their arguments not only weak but, in almost all cases, completely unrelated to the issue of animal slaughter. To start with, the HFA says that:

Muslims are commanded by Allah (SWT) in the Qur'an to eat only pure, wholesome and permissible food that is fit for human consumption.

That is straightforward but completely generic, so I took this just as an introduction to the topic they were beginning. Next we are given six examples from the Qur'an itself which allegedly outline this requirement. Let us look at each of these first before looking at the reasons given from the hadith. On a side note I absolutely detest reading the Qur'an in English, simply because it sounds ridiculous and competely misses the nuance and clarity of the Arabic text. The examples are as follows.

Firstly, the Qur'an says "O, ye men! Eat of what is in the earth lawful and wholesome and follow not the footsteps of Satan; for verily he is an open enemy to you." al Baqara verse 168.

Well, fair enough. There is no argument here but we can understand that we should only eat that which is lawful and wholesome. We'll talk about the lawful bit in a moment.

Secondly, "O, ye who believe! Eat of good things. We have provided with and render thanks to Allah. If Him it is ye worship." al Baqara verse 172.

So again, here we have a direction to "eat of good things", and earlier in al Baqara we are told to eat what is "lawful and wholesome". So presumably, eating junk food, poison, or yellow snow is something a Muslim isn't allowed to do. It seems quite sensible but this doesn't tell us that as a Muslim I'm forbidden from buying a Waitrose steak slaughtered to the highest food hygiene standards. So let us look at the next point.

Thirdly, "And eat of what Allah hath given you (for food) that which is lawful and wholesome, and fear Allah in whome ye believe." al-Maida verse 88.

Again, we have the lawful and wholesome imperative but no mention of the content of this imperative.

Fourthly, the HFA quotes the Qur'an as follows, "So eat of that (meat) upon which Allah's name has been mentioned, if you are believers in His verses" Al-Anam, verse 118.

Now here the HFA has been a bit naughty because in Arabic that verse does not imply meat or otherwise. It is well known to all Muslims that they say "In the Name of God" before eating their meals whether that involves fruit, vegetables or fish. However, to imply meat in brackets on their websites is a little bit dishonest and frankly I am concerned that such an assocation should resort to subtle plays on words, especially to people who might not understand Arabic and will be unable to read the original text. A less generous description of what they have done would say they were lying.

Fifthly, "And do not eat that upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned, for indeed it is a grave disobedience". Al-Anam, verse 121

In this verse again it is not implied that the subject is meat, but that still doesn't tell us that animals slaughtered must be with somebody saying something when they do the slaughter. It is just saying that you shouldn't eat that which hasn't had the name of Allah mentioned upon it, but as a Muslim you should say Bismillah before eating or drinking anyway. So I am not sure why this is given as a verse concerned with slaughter.

Sixthly, "O Messengers, eat from the pure foods and work righteousness". al-Muminun verse 51.

Again, there is a constant theme of purity, or goodness in foods which are lawful. I think it is quite obvious here that by that they mean foods which are of good quality and suitable for healthy consumption. But what is starkingly obvious is that there is no mention of slaughter.

It is clear that for a better understanding of of Islamic rules on slaughter we must find the meaning of the word "lawful". I wanted to find out what is 'lawful'. In al Ma'ida, verse 3, the Qur'an states:

حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةُ وَالْدَّمُ وَلَحْمُ الْخِنْزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ وَالْمُنْخَنِقَةُ وَالْمَوْقُوذَةُ وَالْمُتَرَدِّيَةُ وَالنَّطِيحَةُ وَمَا أَكَلَ السَّبُعُ إِلاَّ مَا ذَكَّيْتُمْ وَمَا ذُبِحَ عَلَى النُّصُبِ

You are forbidden dead [animals], blood, the flesh of pigs and what has been slaughtered to other than Allah and [forbidden] the suffocated, the bludgeoned, what has fallen from a great height, that which has been knocked to death by another animal, and that which has been killed by any predator...

Fine, so that is clear and in fact all of it seems like common sense. Elsewhere in the Qur'an we are told that if you are forced to then of course you can. So again, common sense is a theme here. In regular slaughterhouses throughout the world, at least those not governed by religious laws, we find that carbon monoxide, bolts and electricity are used to stun the animal before its throat is cut to let out the blood. So there is no fear of it being contrary to any of the methods forbidden in verse 3 of al Ma'ida. The animals have also had no name mentioned when they were slaughtered, so they were not slain in the name of Jupiter or Thor, let alone in the name of Allah. If the animal was already dead, diseased, bludgeoned to death before the blood was let out, then it is in fact contravening the health and safety regulations of most if not all developed societies with proper laws and concern for food safety. To assume that this verse implies a prohibition on animals slaughtered with no name uttered is completely subjective.

So the big question is where does it say that the slaughter has to be in the name of Allah at the time the animal is slain and not after? The examples from the HFA website taken from the Qur'an do not show this requirement and it is unreasonable to assume that they do. Let us look at the Hadiths that the HFA give as further justification for requiring this Halal requirement.

Firstly, Abu Baker narrated that the Prophet Muhamad said, "That body will not enter Paradise which has been nourished with Haram" al Baihaqi

Well, I don't want to assume anything, but firstly we have not determined that meat from regular slaughter houses is haram and secondly the meaning of this hadith goes far beyond food and also (far more likely) appears to be concerned with those who make money or wealth by illegitimate means. So this hadith does not appear to say what the HFA want it to say, and that is a big difference.

Secondly, Ibn Ujrah relates that the Prophet said, "A body nourished with Haram will not enter Jannah" by Tirmidhi.

Again, as with the first hadith, we are not debating the issue of haram or the hadith's authenticity. We are trying to determine what exactly is haram first, in order to avoid it best. This hadith is concerned with us avoiding haram, it is not telling us what the haram is and it is assumed we have already obtained this knowledge before we try to understand the hadith.

Thirdly, Jabir reported that the Prophet said, "That flesh will not enter Paradise which has grown from Haram, and all that flesh which has grown from Haram, the fire (of hell) is more worthy of it" by Ahmed, Darimi and Baihaqi.

This is another example of the HFA selectively choosing a text to suit the point being made. The haram in this hadith is not related to meat, but with money or wealth obtained illegitimately through dishonest means. The flesh which will grow from it is from food brought with this dirty money. Whether the person eats meat slaughtered according to the HFA's or the 'Halal' industry's specifications is irrelevant and besides the point.

Finally, Abu Huraryah reports that the Prophet said, "A time will come upon the people wherein a man will not bother what he intakes; whether from a Halal source or Haram" taken from Sahih al Bukhari.

Again, this does not tell us what is haram and the hadith does not speak about anything to do with meat. It is about any source of wealth which may have been obtained illegitimately and dishonestly. Why should I assume that this is an argument for me to eat meat that has been certified by the HFA? In fact, why should I choose meat certified by any of these 'Halal' specification authorities and not, for example, a premium cut of meat from a reputed vendor that has taken every reasonable precaution that the meat was slaughtered hygienically and that the animal was well treated and killed with as little pain as possible. I cannot find a convincing answer to these questions from any of the proponents of this Halal industry.

I am not a religous authority but I've taken the time and effort to reach an informed decision based on an understanding of the Qur'an from verses which are clear and unambiguous to anybody who understands Arabic. I am happy to hear readers thoughts or suggestions on this topic. So far, I see this whole Halal industry as a fad and a load of nonsense with no basis in the Qur'an or the Hadith. It seems to me everybody has taken it for granted that there is such a basis and that they have done so mistakenly and out of a certain naivety. It seems there is no evidence that the Halal meat industry is anything but a self perpetuating con.

.

'Twas the night before Christmas

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house

Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.

But this year was different within the Middle East

For there will be no Christmas dinner, no turkey feast

For the first time in decades in grand old Baghdad

Noel won't be coming and there are none to be sad.

For here in this city, for the first time in ages

Christians are fleeing, erased from her pages

But in the Holy Land surely, things must be different

Yet for some strange reason festivities are absent.

King Herod has spoken and issued an edict

Christmas is cancelled in the Nazareth district.

Santa came by in his magnificent sleigh

To give out his presents and be on his merry way.

He tried to stop by and visit the Nativity church

and instead was given a full-body cavity search.

He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,

And away they all flew like the down of a thistle.

But I heard him exclaim, ‘ere he drove out of sight,

"Happy Christmas to all, screw you and good-night!"

That is probably not how the famous poem goes, but then again, it is not natural for the Middle East to slowly be emptied of its Christian communities. In Iraq Christians are leaving in droves whilst in Nazareth Christmas celebrations were cancelled by the Israeli mayor. It is quite telling that in the two Arab countries under direct Western occupation in the region, the plight of Christians there has never been more dire. There is probably more Christmas cheer in Riyadh today than there is in Bethlehem.

.

Ibn Tufayl's novel Hayy Ibn Yaqzan - the most original written work of the Middle Ages

R. Briffault said that Muslim Spain was "the cradle of the rebirth of Europe" and I agree with him. Ibn Tufayl was a prominent philosopher, astronomer and thinker who was born and grew up in the region surrounding Granada during the reign of the Muwahids, who had crossed over from Morocco in the twelfth century. It was he who had introduced Ibn Rushd to the Caliph, in order to complete the annotation of the works of Artistotle that had been begun by the other eminent philosopher, Ibn Bajja. Of his works, the only one that remains is the tale of Hayy Ibn Yaqzan (The Living Son of Awake).

Hayy is an interesting tale, described by one writer as "the most original work of the Middle Ages". The story of Hayy begins on an island, somewhere with an ideal and pure climate. Interestingly, we are told that either Hayy was abandoned by his family or that he was generated from the land itself. Either way, he is raised by a deer mother from infancy and lives only with the wild animals. Through natural curiosity and the use of his intellect, Hayy begins to explore the world around him and accumulate knowledge through observation initially. As his investigations become more complex and mature, Hayy begins to observe the existence of phenomenon and worlds that exist beyond the sensible. Finally, Hayy comes to the conclusion that there is a creator for this universe.

In the epilogue, Hayy is convinced by visitors to his island to come to another inhabited land and help spread his knowledge to the people there. Once he arrives he is horrified by the indifference of the general population to philosophy and the search for wisdom. He advises those who have invited him to continue with the safe and literal understandings of religion, to avoid further confusion for them, and the reader is left with the message that there is some knowledge to which the general mass of humanity is unsuited to comprehend, that it is best left to those able to understand.

The book itself is quite simple to read but the philosophical concepts underpinning it will be strange and perhaps confusing to those unfamiliar with Islamic and neo-Platonic philosophy. Before starting the story, Ibn Tufayl gives us a summary of the ideas that were dominant in philosophical circles of the time. He gives some thoughts about Avicenna, of whom he is extremely admiring, a passing glance at al Farabi and a sympathetic view to al Ghazali's approach to philosophy. Later in the work, it is very clear that he considers God to be The Necessary Existent, rooted firmly and centrally within a very Avicennan understanding of the universe. As with Avicenna, it is not entirely clear how he reconciles the Quranic understanding of God with his own, ie the Ghazalian understanding of God in which the necessity of actions is directed from God rather than within each of the causes and effects that permeate from the Necessary Existent.

Some curious notes about what Ibn Tufayl believes in. He holds an Avicennan view that the Sun is actually cold for some reason, that the soul is housed in a chamber within the heart and that this soul is a white gaseous substance which is extremely hot to the touch. The book ends with a discussion of sufism and the way it can be used to acquire knowledge. Yet I was left with a slightly depressed feeling at the end of the book. If Ibn Tufayl wished to show a path for those seeking true knowledge and ecstasy in finally seeing the perfection of God, he also paints a depressing picture of the inability of the majority of humanity in ever reaching that point. In a sense, he is a precursor to Ibn Rushd's own quite elitist perspective of philosophy.

Ibn Rushd later deemed it outrageous that al Ghazali had made the tools of philosophy readily available for the common masses, meaning that they would start to ask questions they were not prepared to hear the answer for. In fact he advocated the death penalty for those who dabbled with philosophy foolishly. Quite a remarkable position for somebody that is usually hailed as a liberal and enlightened beacon of Islamic philosophy and a reversal for the traditional and orthodox view that al Ghazali was a conservative and dogmatic influence on Islamic philosophy. Ibn Tufayl's disapproval of having philosophy popularly available stemmed perhaps from his despair in triggering people's interest in the topic, whereas Ibn Rushd seems more interested in keeping them at bay and preserving philosophy as the unique activity for an intellectual elite.

Overall the book is something that is very interesting to those who want to understand more about Islamic philosophy, but it will be extremely boring for those who have no background in the topic and think this will give them an insight. One thing I find particularly annoying is the Arabic commentary which usually accompanies such books. Although in my copy, the commentary was actually really good, I know that my copy of al Ghazali's Revival of the Religious Sciences, the commentator and editor of the books not only seems to have very little philosophical background, but a stern orthodox approach to Islam which disapproves of al Ghazali's sufism and method of using weaker hadiths to push a point across. The footnotes are littered with unhelpful and disparaging remarks which are really unnecessary. One theory I have for this is that the Ibn Tufayl book appears to have been released by a Shia publishing house based in Beirut, whereas my al Ghazali books were edited by an orthodox Sunni scholar. I don't like to make too much of a generalisation, but Sunni religious authorities tend to be remarkably boring, unimaginative and often ridiculous in the positions they hold with regards to philosophy. I would like to be disproved in this initial observation but my hopes are not high in this regards.

There are is an online version of this book, along with information about Ibn Tufayl, available on the excellent Muslim Philosophy website.

.

ناظم الغزالي - أقول وقد ناحت بقربي حمامة

Nathem al Ghazali singing a song based on an amazing poem by the chivalrous Abu Fera al Hamadani.

.

Bryan Adams in Syria...

Samantha Fox - I Surrender To The Spirit Of The Night

After the phenomenal success of The Gorillaz in Damascus, another great artist has visited Syria. Mr Bryan Adams (that's Bryan with a y, not an i) follows in the footsteps of the greats as he attempts to establish himself in the discerning Syrian music market. Will he succeed where others have failed? Only time will tell.

Welcome to Syria Mr Adams, but never forget that Samantha Fox was there first. You have some big shoes to fill...

.

يا إمام الرسل يا سندي

.

Short Break

I will be taking a slight break from blogging activities as I attend to some pressing matters. Hopefully I will be able to write a few posts every so often and time allowing.

.