1 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Taj: A nice line in obfuscation

Reader comment on item: Destroying Sculptures of Muhammad
in response to reader comment: through time...

Submitted by Plato (India), May 1, 2008 at 23:53

Taj, reading your posts I notice you have a nice line in obsfuscation.

>> I think that the term "unclean" must be understood in the context of "purity" - purity itself in the context of spirituality. The concept of unclean/clean animals predates Islam and apparently Judaism as well, given the biblical verse in Gen, chapter 7.<<

Because the concept of purity pre-dates Islam, is it to be accepted? In Hinduism the concept of purity, probably older than Judaism, has the concept of impure humans who cannot be touched. Should this practice be continued on the basis of its antiquity?

>> Just what makes or why any animal is unclean has been subject to many theories but to be honest, I believe that such rules were simple matters of boundaries<<

Boundaries?? The caste system is also about boundaries. About all those theories of animal uncleanness that you refer to can you tell about one that seems convincing to you?

>> Muhammad was no biologist/zoologist/chemist/dietician so I doubt he attempted to instill ancient health regulations - not to mention that I am not sure there was ever a "need" to find pork or dogs unclean in this context.<<

You seem unsure of so many things in your religion.

It is not Muhammad who was trying to instill health regulations. It was Allah the all-knowing, Himself who forbade pork, and surely Allah was a biologist-cum-zoologist-cum-chemist-cum-dietician par excellence.

>> Especially since dogs are considered unclean but there is no specific rule that describes that they are unclean to eat. Physically dogs are pretty clean, cleaner than humans (lol), and have not been subject to being vehicles of disease, plagues, etc - hence the consideration of them being unclean seems to have no rhyme or reason with regard to hygiene. Dogs can be kept as hunting dogs, one may eat what it catches but must wash if licked by one.

You got that right, Taj. There is no rhyme or reason for considering dog's unclean. You can find so many other Islamic practices like animal sacrifice, wudu which also seem to have no rhyme or reason.

>> On the other hand pigs….. while considered the symbolism of gluttony, they are otherwise extremely intelligent animals. It just might also be the case that having one inside the home would not cause the avoidance of angels.<<

Gabriel was frightened of dogs, not pigs. Maybe because they are likely to bite unwelcome strangers, angels not excepted?

>> Throw in the prohibition of unslaughtered dead animals, animals with talons and claws or food that is blessed in the name of any diety other than God- and you have a multitude of considerations as to how "unclean" is defined.<<

Yes you have a multitude of considerations, most of them without rhyme or reason especially the one about food blessed by a deity other than Allah.

How about food cooked by, say Hindus, many of whom make a supplication, if only in their minds, to the deity who presides over the destiny of cooks? Or whose kitchens will have innumerable pictures of gods looking down benignly on the food that is being cooked?

>> Thusly, it would be difficult (probably by divine design, lol) to then attempt to alter the law for the sake of modern consideration - since the original considerations have little to nothing to do with "temporal" context - despite many arguments to this effect...<<

It is obvious that the purpose behind all that obfuscation was to justify sticking with archaic religious laws. What I can also extrapolate from this complicated bit of obfuscation is that since the original considerations for slavery in Islam have nothing to do with ‘temporal' contexts Muslims also unsuccessfully opposed the attempt to alter the law on slave keeping ‘for the sake of modern consideration'. So too now for the status of women in society. For the eye-for-an-eye laws, for animal sacrifices etc.

Regards

Plato

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Taj: A nice line in obfuscation by Plato

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List
eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2021 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)