Aurangzaib Yousufzai – October 2017

 

Thematic QuranicTranslation Series - Installment 28

(In English Language)

 

QURAN A “GUIDE TO EATING & DRINKING” 

OR A MODE OF SOCIO-POLITICAL CONDUCT?

 

Rebuttal of Fictitious Traditional Interpretations

Relevant Verses Brought under Rational

and Academic Scrutiny

 

 

 

PRELUDE

Continued research in contemporary times has proved that the inherited form of ISLAM blindly followed by the multitudes of Muslims around the globe is, in fact, a BIG ARAB SCAM, introduced from the time of the insurgent despotic Damascus regime of Banu Umayyad.  It was a regime established by the worst enemies of Islam, who virtually usurped the welfare-oriented socio-political Caliphate launched by the Messenger of God, Mohammad pbuh.  This counter revolution was unleashed only 24 years after the sad demise of the great revolutionary of all times, Mohammad pbuh.

This research article is presented with the sole purpose of pinpointing a part of the blatant distortions interpolated in the Umayyad era in the Quran’s very crucial idealistic texts via fictitious interpretations (tafaseer).  It also serves the purpose of offering some intellectual adulthood to our traditionist brethren who persist in deriving from those fictitious interpretations their wishful, frivolous allowances of flesh-eating, and try to determine there from a very foolish lawful or unlawful status of animal “flesh and fat” of the beasts without “claws” and those having “claws”!

It must be borne in mind that this writing is not an undue attack on anyone’s convictions, nor is it a personal intervention into anyone’s faith factor.  It is solely a mission to rectify the contents of old, outdated and malicious Quranic interpretations/translations on the basis of the latest human knowledge and intellect.  It is a part of the continued struggle of comparing the inherited material with the true and pure doctrine of the Quran in order to discover the veritable truth.  Needless to mention that to purify the Quranic doctrine in its own true light is the destination of this humble writer, so that when it is presented to the humanity in its original state, its truth, authenticity and its benefits and blessings for humanity at large should be found above and beyond any doubt, even when it is mercilessly scrutinized on any standard academic and intellectual criterion.  And not a single soul on earth may venture into ridiculing it.

Only two key Verses relating to our Theme have been brought under professional scrutiny and academic research, and we start from Verse 6:145, which our flesh-eating enthusiasts victoriously present in support of their killings of innocent animals for the lust of flesh eating:-

6:145 : قل لَّا أَجِدُ فِي مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ مُحَرَّمًا عَلَىٰ طَاعِمٍ يَطْعَمُهُ إِلَّا أَن يَكُونَ مَيْتَةً أَوْ دَمًا مَّسْفُوحًا أَوْ لَحْمَ خِنزِيرٍ فَإِنَّهُ رِجْسٌ أَوْ فِسْقًا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ ۚ فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَلَا عَادٍ فَإِنَّ رَبَّكَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ.

In this respect, the entire legacy of our traditional and modern translations is mutually identical or virtually similar in meanings and is reenacted here like this:-

6:145  “Tell them O Mohammad, I do not find, as per the Revelation that has descended upon me, anything unlawful for an eating one to eat except that if (1) it is a dead animal, or (2) it is the blood as it flows out , or (3) it is the flesh of swine, which verily is unclean, or (4) it is a transgression in the way that the animal is slaughtered without proclaiming the name of Allah on it; then if someone might eat one of these prohibited things in a situation of compulsion, without having intentions to disobey or transgress the prescribed limits, surely your Lord condones such cases because He is merciful.”

 

DISCUSSION

Let us check whether this translation, taken from old fictitious interpretations of the Quran, is rational in some degree, OR is it a pure, insane conspiracy incorporated therein.  Has an organized effort been made here to corrupt the Quran’s great idealistic discipline by adopting highly commonplace and street jargon in its translation for making it a target of ridicule?  We are going to determine the truth soon.

As you must have known, our traditionist hypocrites and distracters do make assertions that the word “TAAIM – طاعم” is clearly stipulated, and there also described is the Verb “Ta’ama – طعم”; hence what else could be contrived from this text except the rightful meaning of “EATING”!

What is clearly described in all these cursory translations goes like this ,,,,, “Tell them that whatever has been revealed upon me,,,I do not find in it,,,,,any prohibition upon an EATER,,,, of anything that he EATS,,,,, excepting…bla,bla,bla”!  Haven’t they bidden farewell to logic and rationality while making a self-assumption that the Divine Revelation was not a MODE OF HUMAN CONDUCT, but, it contrarily was a prescription of “A MENU OF EATING AND DRINKING ITEMS” for them ???  Isn’t it a blatant degradation of that Divine Revelation which enjoined the most justice-based peaceful human behavior?  Isn’t it the one which disseminated the most intellectual guidance that led towards a class-less society with equal rights for everyone; and which inculcated the permanent universal values and ideals that fostered the spiritual evolution of man under a benevolent system of human welfare, progress and prosperity for all?  We can easily discern that our traditionist brethren have gone out of their minds by devaluing the loftiest ideals of divine guidance to the lowest ebb of an ambiguous EATING GUIDE!

Assuming for a few minutes that here we DO HAVE a prescription of EATABLES from our Creator, let us discover that the first two described “things” are those which no one on the globe eats or drinks (except a scant few uncivilized tribal wretches who are dying with hunger and can get hold of nothing else to eat) – namely, the flesh of the dead and blood!  How can you bring into focus and ban those “things”, by a general code or collective injunction, that have never been thought of as eat- or drinkable in the length and breadth of the civilized world, and which create repulsion and sickness at the very first sight?  And that, too, in a human society of the early Islamic period where no food items of that kind were conceivable?  Add to that the fact that both the first items, viz, Maytatah and Damman Masfoohan are not related by Quran to any animal since we fail to find a mention of any animal with these items!

We all know that the Holy Messenger received Revelation in a rich commercial land where no lack of awareness of existing civilizations was to be found.  Makkah having been situated on a major trade route happened to be a population of assorted groups of nationalities and faiths with a substantial segment of People of the Book included and close interaction with them was in practice. Only an insane person could have thought that such a diverse and multi-cultural community used to eat the flesh of the dead and drank blood, and therefore, were categorically ordained to refrain from this abominable practice by the Quran!!!

And then - about the third item in the list - if Laham al-Khanzeer is defined as the “Flesh of the Swine”, it will naturally infer that except the Flesh all other parts of that animal were not banned from eating, like fat, glands, bones’ soup, the head and feet, etc. etc.!!!  Why can’t we think that if an animal had to be declared prohibited to eat, why only one of its body contents (flesh) was pinpointed?

And then how could the sentence “maa uhilla li-ghayir Allah bi-hi – ما اھل لغیر اللہ بہ” made to mean “the sacrifice of some animal”? Where are the words denoting "animal" or "sacrifice" here?  By what lexicon or which argument an animal and a slaughter has been misconstrued here?  “Uhilla” simply means ‘raising a voice’ – any loud announcement openly done – and here, in the Quran’s virtual words, a prohibition is being imposed upon raising a voice other than Allah’s in the midst of an ideological movement, which actually means every act and thought which follows other than the divine guidance!  BUT look at these charlatans, obsessed with the lust of flesh eating, by exercising a most degrading wishful conjecture, conspire to bring in some sacrificial animal here!  How could they interpolate so blatantly the text of the Divine Scripture, by committing a grave sacrilege thereby, except by virtue of a Royal sponsorship???

The conclusion we are led to arrive at from this blatant distortion simply means that the Arab rulers, who sponsored the organized corruption of the Quranic philosophy, were so obsessed with flesh eating and womanizing that they are seen projecting these two desired evils wherever they could draw them in as divine injunctions.  In this instance they make flesh eating somehow lawful, and on all other possible occasions they are noted unjustifiably misconstruing “women” from the words “Azwaaj, al-Mar’at, al-Zaaniah, al-Mushrikah, Mominaat, Mohsinaat, ma malakat ayimanukum, ahl al-Bayit, etc. etc. by the same fraudulent yardstick of theirs.  In fact, to incorporate debauchery into the Quranic texts as a purpose or mission was the major tactic in the Umayyad conspiracy.

So, you have seen that the traditional translation, in spite of the use of the word “Ta’aam” here, is out of the curriculum of the Quran and out of question.  The word “Ta’aam”, even otherwise, has other root meanings too, apart from the very commonplace meaning of “food”. 

Let us check from the world’s most comprehensive Arabic-English Lexicon:-

ط ع م: طعم: مصدر – تطعیم : Inoculation, vaccination, grafting; rejuvenation, regeneration by taking in new elements, to inlay or equip (with ivory, wood, etc....) ھو رجل لا یطعم ؛ He is a man who will not become well disciplined, in whom that which should improve him will not produce an effect; and who will not become intelligent.

It is by now a well-known discovery that our traditionist scholars usually concentrated upon only a single, lone equivalent of every Quranic word, criminally ignoring its entire scope of meanings.  It is always the one most commonplace equivalent which represented a street jargon.  Therefore, these pathetic ones can derive from Ta’aam only a lone meaning of “food” or “eating”.  So, discarding their insane passion of flesh-eating out of this scholarly research, let us now view the latest effort for deriving a most rational and purely academic translation of the divine injunction which leaves behind the least degree of ambiguity in our comprehension :-

6:145: قل لَّا أَجِدُ فِي مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ مُحَرَّمًا عَلَىٰ طَاعِمٍ يَطْعَمُهُ إِلَّا أَن يَكُونَ مَيْتَةً أَوْ دَمًا مَّسْفُوحًا أَوْ لَحْمَ خِنزِيرٍ فَإِنَّهُ رِجْسٌ أَوْ فِسْقًا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ ۚ فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَلَا عَادٍ فَإِنَّ رَبَّكَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

6:145  “Tell them O Messenger : “Whatever has been revealed to me I do not find therein for a seeker of knowledge and intellect (Taa’im – طاعم ) anything prohibited in the knowledge and intellect that he intends to acquire (yat’amu-hu – یطعموہ), except that which may ruin or cause death of his faculty of imagination (al-mayitatah – المیتتہ “Mufarradat Raghib”), or which may cause outpour of impolite and uncivilized behavior (damman masfoohan – دم مسفوحا), or which may cause him join together with (laham –لحم) a devious/cunning person (Khinzeer – خنزیر) it being an unholy (رِجْس) alliance, or which is tantamount to the crime (أَوْ فِسْقً) of proclaiming (أُهِلّ) a non-divine ideology (لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ). However, who might have done so under some forced compulsion (اضْطُرّ), without ever having a willful intention of disobedience and transgression on their part, for them their Lord is the dispenser of protection and mercy.”

Before we proceed further, here is the authentic attestation of the meanings of words in parenthesis used in the above translation:-

Al-Maytatah: [الْمَيْتَةُ] : Diminishing of the Intellect (Raghib Isfahani); death of the faculty of intellect.

Ad-Damma: [الدَّمُ] :Stuff for painting red; blood; blood-letting; smearing with blood or some other stuff; blood stained; something or form which is painted; to coat a house with mud; a women who has painted with saffron around her eye; A very uncivilized and impolite attitude.

Al-Khinzeer [الْخِنزِيرِ]:: Kh z r: He affected, or pretended to be cunning, intelligent or sagacious, or intelligent with a mixture of craft and forecast. Narrowing of the eyes; he looked at him from the outer angle of the eye, as one does in pride and in light estimation of the object at which he looks; look through small or closed eyes; shrewd, cunning.

Laham [َلَحْمُ]: to mend, patch, weld, solder; to join in battle, engage in a mutual massacre; to cling together, cleave together, stock together, hang together, cohere, to hold firmly together; to be joined, united; to be in immediate contact.

Uhilla li ghayiril-laaha bihi [أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ‌ اللَّـهِ بِهِ]: That from which the name other than Allah may rise.

 

Our flesh eating friends have been trying their best to smooth over the Quranic passages in their favor, and eventually fished out another Quranic piece of text :- 5:75 : “kaana yakulaan at-Ta-aam” – کانا یاکلان الطعام – and challenged this writer to show them how he can translate these words too in the Quran’s real literary and symbolic terms!  They maintained that from those words nothing can be translated except “eating” since both equivalents of eating like “akala” and “ta’ama” were described therein!  However, their negative endeavors did not bear fruit, as the proper rational translation from this sentence repudiated their contention altogether as is evident from here :-

کانا یاکلان الطعام “Both of them were (کانا) acquiring (یاکلان) knowledge and intellect (الطعام)”;

“akala” (yakulaan) here denotes “acquisition”, not the literal commonplace meaning of “eating” as we all were duped into.  As we know, it might have been utter foolishness on the part of the Quran to proclaim that “both of them used to eat food”, which is an indiscriminate, unconditional and undisputed human necessity that doesn't need mentioning at all by anyone in any context!  Man eats under his instinctive pressure because his physical life or animal organism depends upon eating.  If he stops eating, he dies.

The most rational and authentic translation has been presented to the Readers.  Now it is up to the individual whether to derive the distorted traditional meaning of eating and drinking from here – this being the most accepted ultimate purpose of our animal life presently – or to derive the guidance of the lofty values of the acquisition of knowledge from this divine source which the Quran has, in reality, declared as the destination for the spiritual evolution of man.  It is known that man’s conscious evolution is acquired with nothing other than a constant acquisition of knowledge.  And then this conscious evolution turns into the only asset needed for success in our life in the Hereafter.

However, it goes without saying that every human being acquires knowledge in proportion with his imaginative capability, his intellectual prowess and his conscious level.  And needless to mention that one is not identical to the other in terms of ideological thinking.  Everyone’s store of active conscious values and evolutionary level do not correspond with others but are peculiar to one’s own self.  And owing to this reality of life, this humble writer never insists that his research efforts must meet with everyone’s approval.

The Quran, in its essence, is not a code of eating and drinking but, in the Writer’s own words, is a “Timeless Mode of Conduct” (Hudan – ھُدی": Verse 2:2), which presents a discipline of human morals and ethics (Values) that enables man to decide consciously and independently about his way of living, viz., his society’s administration and control, his style of family life, his attire and decorum, his choice of profession, and ----------his Eating and Drinking preferences.

Allah swt never declares a food as allowed or prohibited. For example, whenever we read in the Quran about “Khumr – خمر”, which has been corrupted to denote “intoxication of alcoholic drinks”, even that DOES NOT MEAN A DRINK.  It rather means the intoxication of power, authority or wealth.  It is illogical by common sense to think that the Quran would issue commands about eating and drinking, because ever since man was created on this earth he continued eating and drinking without the need of any commands there for.  Eating is an integral part of his physical organism for which he doesn’t need an order or pursuance.  He automatically rejects those eatables which prove harmful to his health and physique.  His centuries’ long experience and ever growing knowledge guides him in this respect.

NOW, after the above part of the research, it becomes necessary to translate the following Verse too, otherwise we will be blamed for ignoring it purposefully, as in it, according to our traditionist translators, animals like cow, sheep and goats and their fat is clearly named and duly classified for “eating”.  On the contrary, in reality, here too we do not find a mention of animal eating.  The Verse goes like this:-

Verse 6:146:

6:146: وَعَلَى الَّذِينَ هَادُوا حَرَّ‌مْنَا كُلَّ ذِي ظُفُرٍ‌ ۖ وَمِنَ الْبَقَرِ‌ وَالْغَنَمِ حَرَّ‌مْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ شُحُومَهُمَا إِلَّا مَا حَمَلَتْ ظُهُورُ‌هُمَا أَوِ الْحَوَايَا أَوْ مَا اخْتَلَطَ بِعَظْمٍ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ جَزَيْنَاهُم بِبَغْيِهِمْ ۖ وَإِنَّا لَصَادِقُونَ ﴿١٤٦﴾

All the modern and old traditional translations stand identical to each other:

And [only] unto those who followed the Jewish faith did We forbid all beasts that have claws; and We forbade unto them the fat of both oxen and sheep, excepting that which is in their backs or entrails or that which is within the bone: thus did We requite them for their evildoing-for, behold, We are true to Our word!" (Asad)

DISCUSSION:

It’s about the Jews and they are “being punished” for their evil doing by prohibiting for them “the eating of beasts with claws” and “the fat of oxen and sheep”!  But wait a minute; it does emphasize A PARTICULAR KIND OF FAT which was prohibited - - - and SOME OTHER KIND OF FAT which was not prohibited???  What a fantastic “punishment”!  We need here to pay unconditional tributes to our “most intelligent elders” and to their unparalleled “competence”!  Can that be called a “punishment” by any intellectual or academic standards, or by any linguistic or literary criterion?  We hope not!  On the contrary, it can rightly be called the ‘fateful death of intellect and wisdom’!  And, on the other hand, just make a list of all beasts with CLAWS which are prohibited to eat, and check carefully; and you will find that the prohibitive list doesn’t include oxen or sheep!  And, low and behold, only these are the beasts that most of humans usually eat!  So then, if you can still eat these beasts as they are not prohibited, what on earth does the “punishment” mean?  If the purpose of punishment was to ban flesh-eating, this “punishment” doesn’t ban all the flesh-meat that men are eating from times immemorial!  If someone can derive some other tangible meaning from this punishment, please do let us know!  To our humble mind, it was NOT a punishment, it was a JOKE.  You will kindly agree that these translators made a fool of the Quran and of themselves!  And those who read such translations and accept them blindly and propagate them elsewhere have made a joke of themselves too!  The perennial question is whether you can present this insane translation to the world out there that is not going to turn a blind eye or deaf ear on it?  And if you dare to do so, can you stop the adult thinkers from ridiculing you on your pathetic state of mind and your so-called divine Ideology???

You will kindly agree that this is less a prohibitive law and more of a guide for butchers in the art of butchery.  The “beasts with or without claws”, the fat “which is in their backs; fat of entrails; or the fat which is within the bone”?  What does it signify?  It is just like we are reading about some rare medical prescription which certain witch doctors use for enhancing men’s sexual power in the old days!  To this humble writer, this kind of lower class derivations are unworthy of the lofty ideals disseminated by the Quran and it can easily be construed as an undesirable attack against the exalted status of this divine guidance.  We have to condemn the wretched and pathetic mindset of those “learned translators” and beg the Lord’s forgiveness for them for their serious crimes of blasphemy and sacrilege of the Quran.

So, let us now see, through a most modern and rational translation, what in actual fact was banned for Jews for committing transgressions:-

6:146: وَعَلَى الَّذِينَ هَادُوا حَرَّ‌مْنَا كُلَّ ذِي ظُفُرٍ‌ ۖ وَمِنَ الْبَقَرِ‌ وَالْغَنَمِ حَرَّ‌مْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ شُحُومَهُمَا إِلَّا مَا حَمَلَتْ ظُهُورُ‌هُمَا أَوِ الْحَوَايَا أَوْ مَا اخْتَلَطَ بِعَظْمٍ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ جَزَيْنَاهُم بِبَغْيِهِمْ ۖ وَإِنَّا لَصَادِقُونَ ﴿١٤٦﴾

6:146  “And to the Jews we had forbidden all those acts which were Zee Zafarin –ذی ظفر i.e., which involved or connected with acquisition of ownership, domination or victory (ذِي ظُفُرٍ‌ ). (In other words, a state of total passivity, submissiveness, humbleness and austerity was imposed). And in connection with the abundance of wealth and resources (وَمِنَ الْبَقَرِ‌ ), and big flocks and herds (وَالْغَنَمِ), we had also prohibited them (حَرَّ‌مْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ) from showing pride and pomp on these two holdings of theirs (شُحُومَهُمَا), excepting what becomes imminently manifest by the presence of both of these (مَا حَمَلَتْ ظُهُورُ‌هُمَا), or in the course of collection and gathering thereof (الْحَوَايَا ), or they may do whatever they may decide/resolve in this behalf collectively (أَوْ مَا اخْتَلَطَ بِعَظْمٍ). This was what we had subjected them to in return for their arrogance and disobedience (ذَٰلِكَ جَزَيْنَاهُم بِبَغْيِهِمْ ). And We are definitely true to Our Word.”

 

At the end of this research article, all the meanings of the important words in parenthesis are copy/pasted from the most authentic Arabic lexicons for facilitating a quick double check by the Readers to confirm that no smallest degree of deviation from any Quranic word or text has been committed :-


Za-Fa-Raظفر: = to claw or scratch with a nail. zafira - gain possession, attain, overcome/victorious/succeed. zufur/thufur - claws/talon/nails/clutch. azfara - give victory.

Ba-Qaf-Ra بقر؛ البقر : =Slit, ripped, split cut or divided lengthwise, Opening, laying open, widening; Revealing (e.g. story, or an animal's insides)
Inquiring to the utmost after sciences or knowledge
Being astonished, amazed, stupefied at seeing something or confounded, confused, perplexed, tired or fatigued, weary or jaded
Ox, bull and cow (bovine genus) both domesticated and wild
A species of grape that is large, black and round and a species of plum in Palestine; Owner or possessor of oxen/bulls/cows; A strong staff/stick (e.g. for driving herds);
A sedition, discord or dissention that severs society, corrupts religion and separates men, or something wide spreading/reaching and great 
Abundance of wealth/commodities

Gh-Nun-Miim غنم؛ الغنم: = obtained, got, took (usually in reference to spoils or booties); acquisition without difficulties, succeed without trouble, regaining, sheep or goats collected together, numerous flock.

Shiin-Ha-Miim شحم؛ شحوم: = to live or feed with fat, fats/salts/pulp, fleshy part.بے جا غرور، جھوٹی شان، اکڑ، اکڑفوں، تکبر، ہیکڑی، دھاندھلی shuhum n.m. (pl. of shahm) 6:146,, LL, V4, p: 237, 238 ## http://ejtaal.net/aa/#q=shHM

Za-ha-Ra ظہر: = to appear, become distinct/clear/open/manifest, come out, ascend/mount, get the better of, know, distinguish, be obvious, go forth, enter the noon, neglect, have the upper hand over, wound on the back.
zahara - to help/back/support in the sense of collaboration.

Ha-Waw-Ya (Ha-Alif-Ya) حوی؛ حوایا: = To be or become dark green or dark red or brown or black and dried up by reason of oldness. To collect/bring/draw/gather a thing together, grasp a thing, get or gain possession of a thing, take possession of a thing, hold a thing within ones grasp or possession, possess a thing, comprise or comprehend or contain something, to turn a thing around, to wind a thing, assume a round or circular form, to coil, to make a small watering trough or tank for ones camels, to have or assume a roundness or circularity [or the state of being coiled].
ahwa n.m. comp. 87:5; hawaya n.f. pl. 6:146: Lane's Lexicon, Volume 2, page: 314, 315 ## http://ejtaal.net/aa/#q=7wy

Kh-Lam-Tay خلط؛ اختلط: = To mix/intermingle/incorporate/blend, put together with another thing, confuse/confound/disorder, to perplex or disturb, to have intercourse (i.e. a man with his wife, or with a woman), to penetrate into [ TA - khalthu ash-shaybu (the arrow penetrated into him) ], to infect or pervade, associate/converse, become intimate with, enter into a confederacy/league/compact/covenant, good natured/disposition.

Ayn-Zay-Miim عظم: = to resolve, determine, decide, propose, carry out a resolution, set one's heart upon, fixed determination.