Response: I have the following comments to make regarding the question which Mr. Jhangeer Hanif answered about eating donkeys in the November 2003 issue.
First, I think that the writer’s claim that every human being knows what is edible is not a statement of fact. Our culinary tastes are dictated, by and large, by cultural influences, and not at all by some divine guidance that is inherent in our souls. A child tries to put virtually everything in his mouth, including excretion. It is not an uncommon sight in rural areas where infants are pretty much on their own, and without the luxury of diapers, being messed up in trash, they even try to eat it. As we grow up, we start eating things that are socially acceptable. If it were divine guidance, then a human child would never eat anything but what is divinely ordained.
Second, on a philosophical level, there is a fundamental difference between humans and all the rest of the creation. What to do and what not to (and what to eat is a part of this) are indeed built-in in the case of animals. The humans, on the other hand, have a choice in everything they do. A lion will die of hunger but will never eat grass, which may be right under his nose. Humans can, and historically have, eaten virtually everything including other humans. Trying to prove human predilection through the examples of animal kingdom is pretty childish and uncharacteristic of the intellectual depth that Renaissance has come to earn.
Third, the author needs to realize the fact that there are more people on this planet who relish the likes of lizards barbequed with spices and eagles cooked in corn oil than there are who do not: cats, dogs, and snakes are still considered delicacies of the highest order in the far east.
And finally, the most berserk argument: first he says that we are disposed to eat what our Lord has ordained in our souls. But then he makes four exceptions where his divine navigation system fails, and hence these four things needed to be explicitly mentioned by the Lord.
Comment: The assertion that humans are well aware of what is edible is not mine. It actually seems to be the stance of the Book of Allah. When it asserts that all good things (attayyibāt) have been made lawful for humans, it is in fact relying on the human judgment regarding determination of what is good for eating. Since the underlying objective of our life in this world is to attain inner purification, we would naturally be concerned that we do not eat anything that has wild or immoral characteristics. As an obvious corollary, we would use our intuition and intellect to make selections among animals. Using intellect and intuition is nothing but an application of our innate guidance. You write:
Our culinary tastes are dictated, by and large, by cultural influences, and not at all by some divine guidance that is inherent in our souls.
I do not deny that our eating habits are somewhat directed by ‘what is in vogue’ in a particular society: the society definitely plays an important role in building our tastes. But my assertion is not that innate guidance is altogether isolated from the society. Innate guidance needs to be appreciated in the perspective of inherent guidance. While the former is ordained within the souls of people, the latter is inherited from the preceding generations the chain of which reaches back to Adam (sws) and Eve (sws)—the first couple who received guidance directly from the Almighty. It is through their progeny that the concept of right and wrong kept transferring to later generations. Only those issues were addressed by the revealed guidance through Messengers where mankind was perplexed and could not resolve them. So, we grow up with the combination of both, the guidance ordained within our souls and the guidance which we receive from our surroundings as common legacy. In other words, we have a ‘light’ inside which is either extinguished or fueled by the practices of the society. Sometimes, however, results may be otherwise as well; the whole society is going on the right track yet a handful of people may deviate and similarly, the whole society may have deviated save a few people sticking to what is right. To elaborate my point, I present you with the example of ‘the west’. People who grow up in the west find that the society at large approves of having intimate relationship before marriage. Repulsion to illicit relationship is built-in in our souls but people over there get affected because of the peculiar practice of their society. But does each and every member of the western culture follow the pattern and essentially have an extra marital relationship? Not at all. The number of such noble people over there is of no concern to us; we need to appreciate the fact that they, however minimal they may be, cherish the substance (purity of heart) regardless of the perverted ‘forms’ of their surroundings. This endorses the fact that innate guidance does work if a person is determined to pay heed to the calls of his inner self. You write:
Second, on a philosophical level, there is a fundamental difference between humans and all the rest of the creation. What to do and what not to (and what to eat is a part of this) are indeed built-in in the case of animals. The humans, on the other hand, have a choice in everything they do.
I agree with you on the point of authority that man has. I however would assert that man is also not devoid of the built-in sense of good and evil. What distinguishes human beings from animals is this sense though the former have also been blessed with will power. They have been given a limited authority to do what they please in this life. And this is what makes their life a test and trial for them while animals have no burden on their shoulders. You write:
Third, the author needs to realize the fact that there are more people on this planet who relish the likes of lizards barbequed with spices and eagles cooked in corn oil than there are who do not: cats, dogs, and snakes are still considered delicacies of the highest order in far-east.
As a result of having authority and will power, man can deviate from the right path of his own volition. This deviation is liable to affect the coming generations as well. I know that deviation of a people has always been a tricky point to understand in the perspective of innate guidance. What needs to be appreciated is the fact that the beginning of mankind was from the right path. Adam (sws) and Eve (sws) were guided people. Whoever is living on this planet traces his origin in them at some point upward in the family tree. This implies that deviation has ensued later and not that mankind started off eating cats and dogs. Lest you raise an objection about the eating habits of our forefathers, I should tell you that the societies set up under the influence of divine guidance are devoid of such abominations. This is sufficient evidence that mankind, as testified to by these societies, was not addicted to such filthy cuisine.
Another fact that you should appreciate is that deviation can always be traced back in history. If diligently done, we’d find that people, some time back, were following the right track when they started deviating. I therefore very humbly assert that deviation of ‘the far-east’ is not primordial but a product of later times and thus has nothing to do with the beginning of mankind. I know this is difficult to figure out in a day or two with the history of eastern people spanning hundreds of years. I however have a very simple analogy to elucidate my stance, which substantiates that deviation can be traced back in history. Continuing with the example of the west, we see that wearing mini skirt is now a normal practice. But have ladies always been wearing such type of dress? The answer is definitely no. Some decades back, ladies would wear as appropriate a dress as any Muslim lady is supposed to. You can see it in the movies of cowboys depicting a culture of the early twentieth century1. You write:
And finally, the most berserk argument: first he says that we like to eat what our Lord has ordained in our souls. But then he makes four exceptions where his divine navigation system fails, and hence these four things needed to be explicitly mentioned.
I do not think that it is about failure of my ‘navigation system’. The only reason that Allah sent Messengers to this world was to decide matters which people could not resolve on their own. Through the final prophet, Allah clearly proscribed these four items (2:173) to place mankind in a right position as regards their status of being forbidden.
1. It is interesting to note that, just in 1907, an actress could get arrested for making indecent exposure: ‘Actress and Swimmer Annette Kellerman made a brief publicity appearance on Boston’s Revere Beach wearing her usual Vaudeville costume - a boy’s black woolen racing suit that clung tightly and left her legs, arms and neck bare. Other women on the beach were wearing traditional swimwear, which included skirts, long-sleeved blouses and stockings. Unhappy with Kellerman’s ‘immodesty’, a fellow beachgoer called a cop, who arrested her for indecent exposure’. Retrieved from: http://msn.ancestry.com/landing/msn/taboo_quiz_answer_m.htm?ans=ADBDAD, on 23 March 2004 at 9:23 AM.