Latest Fatwa - 'All You Can Eat Buffets Against Islamic Law'

reply to post by FlyersFan


I agree, actually.

I've seen plenty of people go to the buffets and still eat sensibly. Then it is a good deal and without making a pig of oneself. I've also seen the people who completely load up their plate x2 or 3 and those would fall under gluttony. It's like, for some, the temptation and desire to eat beyond their fill is just too great. The few times I went while living on the rez, I was too busy trying to corral my children to see an estimate on how many did what.

I kind of see the Fatwa (kind of funny that it's FATwa on this one) as being a prohibition against temptation to commit one of these vices though. I'm sure there's probably one for the entering into a strip club for the same kind of reason. It'd serve as a reminder against the vices that harm the body and soul. Something I think a lot of people (not all) have forgotten in the Western world.

Speaking of alcohol, I actually lived for 7 years in an area that prohibited the sale and consumption of alcohol due to problems with alcoholism. As someone who doesn't typically drink, it was no problem for me but the whole thing was really fascinating. If a person were to have a single glass of wine off the reservation while at a corporate dinner, people would look scandalized and whisper about their being an alcoholic. It was a huge no-no socially to consume alcohol even when in legal areas. As far as the alcoholics went, they shifted to the border towns on "payday" and it made the roadways incredibly dangerous for travel in the evening. The highway back onto the rez was called the Devil's Highway because it had double or triple the fatality rate of any other highway in America. Whether they did right or not to prohibit alcohol is not for me to say because I only saw what occurred after the prohibition was voted into law. It definitely had the effect on the area's society though because they did treat the drinking of a single glass of wine like it was a gossip worthy scandal. It was done though, right here in the US. Prohibition due to a few alcoholics and it was a law.

This Fatwa isn't a law. It's a suggestion to avoid vice. It'd be like the Pope making a suggestion to members of the Catholic church. It's not closing down all the buffets. It's just advising against going to them because of the risk of gluttony. In that sense, it is exactly the same as the Seven Deadly Sins. Islamic or Catholic, one still has free will in the choices one makes but these spiritual advisers will make suggestions to avoid temptations to sin.

What the cleric said exactly is this

“Whoever enters the buffet and eats for 10 or 50 riyals without deciding the quantity they will eat is violating Sharia (Islamic) law,”

So he's not even saying the eating at such a buffet is against Sharia law. He's saying "go in with a plan about how much you will eat to avoid the breaking of Sharia law". Again, similar could be said via the Seven Deadly Sins, "when going into a buffet, take pains and avoid the temptation to commit the sin of gluttony by planning and limiting what you eat." That's my point. In this case, Sharia law and those cardinal vices of Christian faith could reasonably sync.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Actually the pig is a diseased animal, even today. The laws on what to eat and what not to eat are health laws, meaning they are good for you. If you want to have a heart attack at 40 because you eat a slab of bacon for breakfast everyday by all means I won't stop you. Funny how they were so uneducated in your mind but you can't see the glaring cholesterol problems right in front of you. So go ahead and make fun of scripture, call us bible believers stupid, and enjoy your heart attack, after all you earned it. Mmmmmmmm fat.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Well, if people stop going to buffets, would that not effectively shut them down?

stok3th3fir3
Funny how they were so uneducated in your mind but you can't see the glaring cholesterol problems right in front of you.

They WERE uneducated ... that's not 'in my mind'. It's a fact.
Funny how everyone was polite on this thread ... but apparently you are incapable of being.

So go ahead and make fun of scripture, call us bible believers stupid, and enjoy your heart attack, after all you earned

Grow up. Address the topic instead of wishing harm on others. (lovely Christian attitude). The truth is exactly what I said - the uneducated peasants 4,000 years ago didn't know how to cook pork and they got sick. They thought God was angry at them for eating pigs so they made up some 'laws of God' saying don't eat pigs. Luckily MOST of us today know better. By your post it's sadly obvious that not everyone knows better ....

reply to post by stok3th3fir3


Actually, the religious prohibition against eating pig meat is a pretty clever one. When I took Immunology and Pathology, one of the diseases that was discussed was Trichinosis. The presence of the larvae in pig meat can be undetectable. Sometimes it can be seen, other times, nope. Every time one eats pork, they run the risk of developing Trichinosis. We have thermometers and temperature guidance as to the safe temperature to eat pork at where all the little larvae are dead. However, back in the old days, the eating of pork could be a pretty dangerous affair. It's an extraordinarily dreadful disease that basically has worms growing in one's intestine that travel outward throughout the body to lay eggs within the tissues. They'll path through any part of the body to do so, drilling holes as they go. Freaking nightmarish.

So the prohibition against pork probably had very little to do with clogged arteries and more likely to due with these little worms. It was cited as an example of kind of "age old wisdom" before we had microscopes. The hypothesis is that the observation of cause (eating pig meat) and effect (painful hemorrhaging/death) was significant enough to build the association that pig meat is diseased.

Enjoy your ham next Christmas.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Which fits with what I said. 4,000 years ago they didn't know how to cook meat properly so people got sick. In their minds they thought it was God zapping them from heaven for daring to eat pork. In reality, it was just basic science ... not cooking meat properly. Unfortunately, the notion that it was God forbidding people to eat pork has been maintained by some of the followers of the Abrahamic religions when in fact it was totally a man made thing due to the ignorance of the times 4,000 years ago. God had nothing to do with it.

stok3th3fir3
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

Well, if people stop going to buffets, would that not effectively shut them down?

Like I pointed out, the Fatwa doesn't prohibit people from going to eat an all-you-can-eat buffet. It says "go in with a plan on how much you will eat". If people chose to avoid them entirely, then that is their free will but it's not what the cleric said. If anything, the buffets should welcome the cleric's Fatwa because that means people will be more mindful of the amount they eat to avoid excess for the same money spent. Bigger profits for them.

I don't eat McDonald's because I know the food is not good for me. A lot of people know that without a cleric saying so. McDonald's is still in business.

stok3th3fir3
reply to post by Akragon

 

My question to you is, what is the biblical definition of meat? If you think about it, you touch things with your hands all day picking up all kinds of bacteria, which absolutely effects what goes into your belly. Washing your hands is good practice, however doing so in a ritualistic fashion like the TALMUD says is not neccesary. Here Jesus was refuting the washing of hands not saying eat what you want, we can see some evidence in peters dream that there are unclean animals. In the dream Peter states "I have never eaten of anything common or unclean". Well this was Jesus' deciple obviously he would have eaten some of these animals if Jesus cleansed them.

Lets take a closer look then shall we?

In John 6 you'll see Jesus speaking of his "flesh" being meat... that is one exception, in all other cases in the gospels, meat is exactly that... the flesh of animals or fish.

The passage you're looking at in from Matthew 15... Jesus is speaking about people following the commandments of men...

read Mark 7... An earlier book, with the same account.... and read Carefully

15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.

18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.


Now of course you are correct, washing your hands is always a good practice... And so is washing dishes and cups

Jesus is speaking in a general sense... NOTHING you eat can defile you... That doesn't mean that IF you eat raw chicken you won't get sick..... When Jesus says "defile you" he doesn't mean you won't get sick if you don't cook your meat.

He means God won't be angry at you because of what you eat... IF you eat Pork, you are not unclean like the OT says...

The only reason that was implemented in the first place is because of the way they cook their meats back in biblical times.... There was no such thing as "well done" meat... or Rare meat back then.... cooked meat was basically seared on the outside and raw in the middle...

They thought that was considered cooked.... but if you cook pork rare you will likely get sick... Pork must be well cooked inside and out to eat... this is not the case with fish, or beef... both can be eaten raw with little worry....

Pork and poultry can be eaten raw as well, but you will likely get sick from eating it uncooked...

SO yes, as Jesus said.... NOTHING you eat can defile you....

Its not what goes into the belly that defiles you.... What comes OUT OF YOUR MOUTH can defile you.

WORDS can defile you... NOT FOOD

stok3th3fir3
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Actually the pig is a diseased animal, even today. The laws on what to eat and what not to eat are health laws, meaning they are good for you. If you want to have a heart attack at 40 because you eat a slab of bacon for breakfast everyday by all means I won't stop you. Funny how they were so uneducated in your mind but you can't see the glaring cholesterol problems right in front of you. So go ahead and make fun of scripture, call us bible believers stupid, and enjoy your heart attack, after all you earned it. Mmmmmmmm fat.

LOL

I would bet that you eat beef though correct?

You're being a hypocrite... Beef has more fat in it then pork does...

Pork is an extremely lean animal... very little fat content.... Not so much with bacon of course...

The fact is if you eat beef which is fine according to the OT... you're just as likely to have clogged arteries as someone who eats pork

reply to post by FlyersFan


Well, theoretically, if God made everything, then God made Trichinella Spiralis. Unless you're saying that God didn't make everything on this planet.

Technologically, they didn't have microscopes nor did they have temperature controlled ovens to cook foods in. All that considered, they were pretty smart in my book to realize that there were risks to the eating of pig. Today, I don't think that it's possible to buy raw ham at the supermarket. It's usually already cooked to avoid infection. We made a whole bunch of laws in regards to pork products to reduce the risk considerably. Even in the last 100 years in the US, Trichinosis was a problem. According to the CDC, there was an average of 20 cases of Trichinosis each year in the US in 2008-2010 but most cases (not all) are associated with eating wild game. It's still not 100% eradicated.

www.cdc.gov...

It's not a 4000 year old edict either. It's from Leviticus, 11:7 and 11:8 and in the Christian bible as well. The Book of Leviticus was written at around 500 bce at the latest so at least 2500 years old.

Leviticus11:7

And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you.

Leviticus 11:8

You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

biblehub.com...

Basically, the interpretation of these two biblical passages is that, because pigs do not simply just eat grasses, they are unclean. It's a basic rule of not eating animals that eat carrion and that ties in very nicely with Trichinosis. Our own laws in regards to pork products forbids the feeding of raw meat garbage to our pigs. They weren't that dumb.

WhiteAlice
It's not a 4000 year old edict either. It's from Leviticus, 11:7 and 11:8 and in the Christian bible as well. The Book of Leviticus was written at around 500 bce at the latest so at least 2500 years old.

WRITTEN at 500 bc. From laws passed down since 2,000 bc (supposedly Abrahams time). Everything was oral before 500 bc. But either way ... take 2000 bc or take 500 bc ... the people were uneducated about germs and uneducated about how to cook meat. They got sick from improper handling and so they thought God would kill them and send them to hell for eating pork. Now we know better. It's a matter of science (and culinary skills) ... not a matter of a God getting hung up on people eating pork ...

reply to post by Akragon


If you look in genesis only fruit and herbs were called meat. In leviticus we see that only clean animals fruits and herbs are good for meat, so no Biblically meat is what God okays as food.

As i have never said you will go to hell for eating pig and even made it clear that this is an instruction for HEALTH, your body is a temple you should take care of it. Eating pork will not defile your spirit, but that being said can defile your body. If I eat cherry laurell my body will die but that did not defile my spirit.

stok3th3fir3
reply to post by Akragon

 

If you look in genesis only fruit and herbs were called meat. In leviticus we see that only clean animals fruits and herbs are good for meat, so no Biblically meat is what God okays as food.

As i have never said you will go to hell for eating pig and even made it clear that this is an instruction for HEALTH, your body is a temple you should take care of it. Eating pork will not defile your spirit, but that being said can defile your body. If I eat cherry laurell my body will die but that did not defile my spirit.

edit on 17-3-2014 by stok3th3fir3 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-3-2014 by stok3th3fir3 because: (no reason given)

Simple solution to that...

The OT was written by men for men... Not by God, or even inspired by God...

The OT is from THE IMPOSTER... a false god hell bent on making life Hell for humanity....

And by the way... Pork is better for you then Beef...

www.livestrong.com...

If you are trying to lose weight, pork is a better choice than beef, because pork is lower in calories. A 4 oz. serving of pork contains 140 calories, while a 4 oz. serving of beef provides 200 calories. If you ate a 4 oz. serving of pork instead of beef every day, you'd save 420 calories over the course of a week. However, this is unlikely to make a big difference in your weight, as it takes a deficit of 3,500 calories to lose weight. If you are attempting to gain weight, beef would be the better choice.

So once again.... the so called OT god fails the test

reply to post by FlyersFan


So you're going to ignore the CDC crediting the decrease and prevention of Trichinosis specifically through the banning of feeding raw meat garbage to pigs and claim that the prevalence for Trichinosis was simply because they didn't know how to cook meat. Considering that we are essentially their descendents, they obviously knew how to survive in a much more hostile world with less technological advances than what we have today.

You're also choosing to ignore the very specific statement within Leviticus about the eating of pig. The rule in the bible in regards to meats was to only eat those animals whose hooves are cloven, iirc. The bible specifically earmarks the pig as a cloven hoofed animal that you should not eat or even touch the carcass of because it is unclean. Leviticus doesn't specifically say that if you eat pig meat, God will strike you down. It simply says "don't eat it and don't touch the dead body".

I think you may underestimate the intelligence of our forebears. Did you know that Ovid in 4 AD described the earth nearly perfectly?

When whichever god it was had ordered and divided the mass, and collected it into separate parts, he first gathered the earth into a great ball so that it was uniform on all sides...The equatorial zone is too hot to be habitable; the two poles are covered by deep snow; and he placed two regions between and gave them a temperate climate mixing heat and cold.Ovid, The Metamorphoses

ovid.lib.virginia.edu...

And before 100 AD, Hero of Alexandria was inventing and creating steam hydraulic devices to use within temples called aeolipiles.

Or that many of our medicines that we use today actually had ancient origins such as aspirin, which was used all the way back in ancient Egyptian times from 200 BC. They created a brew of willow bark to draw out the salicylatic acid from the plant material to bring down fevers. Or that Aristotle instructed Alexander the Great to boil water and bury feces to prevent disease in 350 bc.

Just because we have technological advances that basically make it so that we don't always have to boil our water before drinking or have a satellite that can show us that the earth is divided into 5 climatic zones, it doesn't mean that our forebears were ignorant. If anything, they were smarter than we are because they survived long enough to breed so that we could be here today without all the technological advances that we have. They didn't have microscopes but they knew that something lingered within certain foods, our feces, and our waters that could make us grow ill. Pretty freaking smart in my book. If anything, if we lost our technological advances tomorrow, I'm not quite certain how we'd all fare because of the ancient knowledge that we've lost.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

Pretty freaking smart in my book. If anything, if we lost our technological advances tomorrow, I'm not quite certain how we'd all fare because of the ancient knowledge that we've lost.

What about the x00,000+ years of humans having survived to reproduce, leading to 'us'?

A wonderful Bill Bryson bit:

Not only have you been lucky enough to be attached since time immemorial to a favored
evolutionary line, but you have also been extremely-make that miraculously-fortunate in your
personal ancestry. Consider the fact that for 3.8 billion years, a period of time older than the
Earth's mountains and rivers and oceans, every one of your forebears on both sides has been
attractive enough to find a mate, healthy enough to reproduce, and sufficiently blessed by fate
and circumstances to live long enough to do so. Not one of your pertinent ancestors was
squashed, devoured, drowned, starved, stranded, stuck fast, untimely wounded, or otherwise
deflected from its life's quest of delivering a tiny charge of genetic material to the right
partner at the right moment in order to perpetuate the only possible sequence of hereditary
combinations that could result-eventually, astoundingly, and all too briefly-in you.

pdf of A Short History of Nearly Everything

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


A like-minded soul.

I always remind my children that all of humanity present today is founded on the backs of survivors. They survived through wit and intelligence through ice ages, pandemics, and the risks of daily life. Instead of deriding them with remarks about their lack of knowledge, we should give them respect because we owe them our lives.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


While that may be true...

it does not mean we also must respect the beliefs of said people...

Or their "gods" for that matter

reply to post by Akragon


Once again you attack the very GOD that Jesus prayed to... hmmmmmm. You are bassically saying "I believe in Jesus, but not the FATHER." Well Jesus prayed to the FATHER and COMMANDED you to do the same. Of course you won't do that, because you hate him, well by association you also hate the messiah who was sent by the OT GOD YAHUWAH. I AM THAT I AM is the one and only GOD. Sorry you don't want to believe in him but you believe in his son, who was filled with the very spirit you hate. I'm sorry but you are divided in two, meaning you are confused, just like you like to say about me.

reply to post by stok3th3fir3


Blindly accepting it all is worse than actually questioning it.
Jesus was a decent dude son of God nope..sorry God doesn't work that way.
Only man gave him the title of son of God and I feel he would be ashamed to to called that.

reply to post by Akragon


Btw Akragon Jesus followed the very rules that you condemn, so ignore that fact all you want it doesn't matter what you believe, Jesus said to follow after him, you refuse to do so.