Pure Islam has always been very concerned with the suffering of any sentient life form. Ahadith abound regarding compassion for hu-mans and and non-human animals alike. The great Sufi Rabi’ah al-`Adawiyah (ra) of Basrah was an early Muslim vegetarian. In recent times, the renowned Sufi Shaykh M.R. Bawa Muhaiyadeen (ra) was very vehement and outspoken regarding what he stated was "the true meaning of the first Kalimah" in relation to vegetarianism and compassion for ALL.

The Qur’an tells us that animals are communities and nations unto their own, and that they are more than mere resources. However, today animals are treated as nothing but machines in modern "factory farms." Over 8 billion animals are slaughtered for food each year in the United States alone. These billions of animals are confined in extremely small spaces so producers can raise as many animals as possible. These factory farms are not only limited to the West. Such systematic and unIslamic cruelty is becoming the dominant means of meat, egg, and milk production throughout the world.

Chickens have their beaks cuts off with hot irons; cattle are dehorned, castrated, branded, and their tails are cut off without anesthetics. Dairy cows are also confined to tiny stalls and kept constantly pregnant through artificial, painful insemination.

The overcrowding of the factory farm causes many animals to become psychotic and to mutilate themselves because of boredom or stress. To combat the diseases rampant in such overcrowded conditions, factory farmers routinely spray animals with pesticides and inject them with antibiotics. To fatten them quickly and inexpensively, animals are pumped full of growth hormones. Residues from these drugs and chemicals are passed on to those who consume the flesh.

These practices violate the Prophet Muhammad’s (sal) teachings to cause no pain to an animal before slaughter. In addition, Muhammad (sal) forbade the cutting off of tails and other mutilations, as well as branding animals on the face (which is still practiced by some ranchers). In transport, animals raised for food are typically denied food and water, are given no protection from the elements, and can often languish for days while waiting to be slaughtered. Many chickens have their wings broken during transport and many animals suffocate in the transport trucks. All of this suffering continues day in and day out, despite the fact that Allah declared, through the Seal of the 124,000 Prophets (sal), that one should not keep an animal waiting to be slaughtered.

Even flesh products that claim to be "halaal" (permissible) are often in direct violation of halaal mandates of how slaughter must be undertaken. Factory-farmed meat may also not be halaal, in the sense that cattle, sheep, chickens, and other animals are routinely fed the ground-up bodies of pigs, chickens, and cattle, along with chicken excrement and other unsavory waste products as a supplement in their food. This wide-spread practice alone should make most meat "haraam" (forbidden) because these animals have eaten pork and because they could be considered carnivorous, and carnivorous animals are generally forbidden for food in Islam. The simple fact that Compassion is encouraged in Islam - and most regions of the world today do not have a nutritional need for animal products to maintain personal health - seems to indicate that many are blatantly ignoring the spirit and inner meaning of what is truly haraam and halaal.

“Eat of that which is Halaal…”

It is simply not enough to slit the animal’s throat in the halaal manner in order to consider the meat halaal. As supported by the Qur’an and Ahadith, the care and welfare of the animals before they are killed are just as important as the way in which they are killed. The Qur’an does not view animals as mere resources but as individuals and communities in their own right.

"There is not an animal that lives on the Earth, nor a being that flies on its wings, but forms part of communities like you. Nothing have We omitted from the Book, and they ALL shall be gathered to their Rabb in the End." Qur’an, Sura 6:38

Physically, man has been put in the same bracket as all other species. There is Nothing, only Allah, and any sense of division or dualistic perception, is a by-product of the nafs (ego), which refuses to see beyond the veil of the World of Dunya. The following Hadith leaves no ambiguity as to the sense in which the Qur'an uses the word "community":

The Qur'an tells us that Allah actually communicates with non-human animals, as the following Ayah tells:

"And your Rabb Revealed to the bee, saying: 'make hives in the mountains and in the trees, and in habitations'." Qur’an, Sura 16:68

Significantly, the Qur'an uses the same Arabic word "Wahy" for Allah’s Revelation to all Prophets as well as non-human animals - as it has been demonstrated in the case of the bee. This demonstrates the basic fact that animals have a sufficient degree of conscious endowment to understand and follow Allah's Message - a faculty which is higher than mere beastly instinct.

The essence of Islamic teachings on the rights and liberties of non-human animal life, is that depriving animals of their fair share in the resources of nature is so serious a sin in the eyes of Allah that it is punishable by punitive retribution. The Qur'an describes how the people of Thamud demanded that the Prophet Saleh (as) show them some sign to prove he was a Prophet of Allah.

At the time of this incident, the tribe was experiencing a lack of food and water (which in and of itself is a product of animal agriculture), and was, as a result, neglecting its livestock. It was revealed to Prophet Saleh (as) to single out a she-camel as a symbol and ask his people to give to her a fair portion of water and fodder. The people of Thamud promised to do that but, later, killed the camel. As a retribution, the tribe was annihilated. This incident has been mentioned in the Qur'an many times in different contexts. (Qur'an 7:73, 11:64, 26:155, 156; 54:27-31).

Once it has been established that each species of animal is a "community" - like the human community and along witth the human community -then it only stands to reason that each and every creature has the right to life and a share in all the natural resources. If an animal is not posing a direct threat to the life of an individual, or if that individual is not residing in a region where the consumption of animal flesh is necessary for sustenance, then the suffering one incurs up any animal is, by definition, excessive and contrary to the Spirit of the Law. To understand this is what M.R. Bawa Muhaiyaddeen (ra) refers to as "knowing the true difference between haraam and halaal."

In the Name of Allah

All of the Qu’ran’s 114 chapters except one begins with the phrase "In the Name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful..." A Muslim is expected to recognize the brotherhood of man and should treat all - whether a Muslim or a non-Muslim - as a Brother or Sister. All Muslims accept that showing compassion and charity, is in fact a service to Allah. Accordingly, the Prophet Muhammad stated that:

Muhmammad (sal) repeatedly forbade cruelty to animals, saying in the Hadith popular tradition,

Similarly, Muhmammad (sal) taught "A good deed done to a beast is as good as doing good to a human being; while an act of cruelty to a beast is as bad as an act of cruelty to a human being."

Ecological Devastation

Muslims are charged to look after the environment. The Qur’an says,

Consuming the products of the factory farm directly leads to the destruction of the earth and the environment. It depletes the topsoil, uses vast quantities of water, and pollutes both earth and water with sewage runoff. More than 70% of U.S. grain is fed to farmed animals. (USDA, World Cereals Used for Feed, 4/91) It takes between 12 and 16 lbs. of wheat to produce 1 lb. of beef. (USDA, Economic Research Service Cattle-Fax, 12/8/89)

Growing feed for industrial animal agriculture systems changes land use, harming biodiversity through habitat loss and ecosystem damage. (FAO of the United Nations, Live­stock & the Environment, 1996) Improper grazing has caused extensive environmental damage and range-land degradation in the Western U.S.; topsoil erosion is a serious problem in the U.S. and to a large extent is caused by the monoculture of corn and soybeans for the animal agriculture industries.

Animal agriculture adds significantly to global warming. Scientific American (9/97) reported that growing feed for livestock requires intense use of synthetic fertilizer, releasing nitrous oxide - a far stronger greenhouse gas than CO₂. Producing feed and heating buildings that house animals uses fossil fuels, emitting CO2; decomposition of liquid manure releases large amounts of methane into the atmosphere, as well as forming nitrous oxide (FAO, 1996).

Intensive farming has made the air unbreathable in many rural communities; some residents must wear masks while outdoors. (Time, 11/30/98) Ammonia emissions from manure can settle on plants and soil, resulting in toxicity and biodiversity loss; manure can accumulate heavy metals, contaminating crops and increasing health risks; spreading manure on land can lead to nitrates in groundwater, posing health hazards. (FAO, 1996)

Animal waste has caused illness through the growth of pathogenic organisms in waterways. Animal Waste Pollution in America: An Emerging Problem, released by Senator Tom Harkin (12/97), states from 1995 to 1997, animal waste in waterways killed over 11 million fish.

The very nature of animal agriculture causes depletion of environmental resources, as well as a higher use of existing plant food, water and the like. The fact of the matter is that humankind is not designed to consume animal products. Allah created us in a state of Eden as herbivores, not as omnivores, and certainly not as carnivores. Thus, it should come as no surprise that when we implement animal products as a favored, normalized facet of human diet, that we will reap the destructive harvest of our actions, whether this is an harvest of environmental destruction, or detriment to human health and soul...

Flesh Consumption and Human Health

"One who fattens himself by killing and devouring other lives has forgotten to kill the animals which, day by day, are killing and eating him from within." M.R. Bawa Muhaiyaddeen (ra)

Muslims are exhorted to eat good, pure, and wholesome food. But we now know that eating animal products is implicated in a host of diseases. People who consume animal products are 10 times more susceptible to heart disease, 40 percent more susceptible to cancer, and at increased risk for many other illnesses, including stroke, obesity, appendicitis, osteoporosis, arthritis, diabetes, and food poisoning. Additionally, meat contains accumulations of pesticides and other chemicals up to 14 times more concentrated than those found in plant foods.

Vegetarians have lower death rates from colon and lung cancer. (Dietitian’s Guide to Vegetarian Diets (DG), 1996) Probable factors are:

Vegetarian diets tend to be high in fiber.

Plant foods are loaded with nutrients (like vitamin C, vitamin E, and carotenoids) that have been shown to inhibit cancer in a number of ways.

Plants contain phytochemicals which have been shown to inhibit cancer cell and tumor growth directly. Phytochemicals are found only in plant foods.

The risk for heart disease is linked to diets high in saturated fat, found mostly in animal and processed foods. Heart disease is much less common among vegetarian men, with those not consuming dairy or eggs having the lowest risk of all. Besides lower levels of saturated fat, plant foods contain antioxidants, which directly protect against fatty build-up in the arteries. As well, no plant food contains any cholesterol.

Many factors affect bone health - including exercise, adequate calcium and vitamin D intake, high sodium intake, and smoking. Eating too much protein, and too highly concentrated sources of protein, makes the blood more acidic. This often results in causing calcium leaching from the bones, thus raising the risk for osteoporosis (Calcif Tissue Int, 1994;44:335). Strict vegetarian diets tend to be less concentrated in protein.

Some calcium-rich plant foods, like calcium-set tofu and calcium-fortified soymilk, are also rich in isoflavones. These are found only in soyfoods and work to help make bones stronger (Perspectives in Nutrition, 1999). A serving of calcium-fortified soymilk - which contains just as much calcium as a glass of cow’s milk - is an excellent ethical substitute for the milk of cows and goats, which Allah designed for the young of the species’.

Unlike other species on this planet, mankind eats flesh foods while we have flat front teeth, such as those possessed by a horse, cow, rabbit and the like. No natural omnivore or carnivore has flat front teeth. Likewise, no omnivore or carnivore has even close to as long a digestive tract as a human being. That is because herbivores take longer to breakdown and process the plant matter which they consume, while flesh eating animals must quickly expel the putrid flesh matter from their digestive tract. Accordingly, the consequences of this slow human digestion of flesh foods is one of the greatest causes of disease, sickness and premature death of human beings.

Unlike animals which Allah designed to be omnivores and carnivores, human beings can not run and catch their prey, nor do we salivate upon sight of the living animals which we consume. We associate only the cooked or processed form of their flesh as "food" while we associate the living animal beings as "animals." Likewise, we sweat, as do all herbivores, while omnivores and carnivores always pant. Clearly these are signs for those who reflect.

Even if mankind could run and catch the animals they seek to kill and eat, we have no sharp claws, nor elongated sharp teeth with which to tear into the flesh of the animal. Again, this is not the case for any animal which Allah designed to eat flesh foods. Truly Allah is the best of Planners, the best of Creators, whose design is without flaw. In the same manner, we do not see other species of Allah’s creation drinking milk from lactating animals that was designed to nourish their young.

Flesh Consumption Is Not Recommended In Islam

The Qur’an, the Injil and the Taurah teach Compassion for all. Islam teaches that one must understand the first Kalimah, that there is Nothing, only Allah, and then they will have the proper foundation to build a nation of Compassion and Justice. The Qur’an is Revelation to all peoples in all contexts; some of which would need to consume animal products for sustenance, while others would not.

The Qur’an says only that permitted meats may be eaten if one so wishes. Nowhere in Islam are Muslims required to eat meat. Meat consumption is neither encouraged nor even recommended. Neither the kindness to animals taught by the Prophet (sal) nor the special place of animals as described in the Qur’an are reflected in modern methods of raising animals for food. Adopting a diet free from meats, dairy products, and eggs is the easiest and most consistent way for Muslims to live in accordance with the ethical, environmental, and health precepts of Islam.

The Qur'an states that man has dominion over animals: "Hu it is who made you vicegerents on Earth." Qur'an 35:39 However, it is made clear that this is not a license for subjugation, but rather mankind’s responsibility towards all of Allah’s Creation, which we have a certain degree of control over.

Humankind’s obligation as Khilafah, or "representative" of Allah in the manifest World of Dunya is not unconditional. Al-Quran unequivocally states what happens to those who misuse their power and do not live up to their responsibility as human beings.

There are people who take the concept of man's dominion over animals as a licentious freedom to break all the established moral rules designed to protect animal rights. The Great Imam Ali (ra) has this to say about those who misuse their authority over the weak and vulnerable: "A savage and ferocious beast is better than a wicked and tyrant ruler."

Again, the Qur'an urges: "And be not like those who say, 'we have heard', while they do not hearken. Verily, the vilest of all creatures, in the sight of Allah, are those deaf and dumb ones who do not use their rationality." Qur’an, Sura 8:21,22

Islam: From Adam to Dawud to Masih

One thing that one must bear in mind in any discussion of Islamic perspective or Prophetic example, is the reality that Al-Qur'an was not revealed to "replace" that which was revealed to the other 123,999 Prophets sent to humanity. Nothing even remotely like that is stated anywhere within the Qur’an.

Rather the Qur'an is likened to a pinnacle of a pyramid, build upon a very broad base. When the Qur'an speaks of stories from earlier Prophets, etc. it does not entirely relay the events, because it is expected that the individual should have knowledge of those stories, or that they should thereafter pursue such knowledge of the earlier portions of the singular Book. The Qur'an corrects passages that had been corrupted over time and adds portions that had never been written down, or that had been lost in antiquity, so that we might have a more WELL-ROUNDED perception of those accounts, and of the Higher Law.

In this base of the Primordial Book is the Taurah revealed to the Prophet Musa (as). At the very beginning of Genesis we are told that Allah placed the Primordial Adam into coats of skin, both male and female, in a perfect garden that was a physical reflection of the Celestial Garden of Paradise. In this garden we were given ONLY vegetation to eat; and commanded to eat of that alone for nourishment of body.

Later, after the Great Flood wiped away much vegetation and many drowned animals were scattered upon the face of the Earth, it was revealed to the Prophet Nuh (as) that it was permissible to eat scavenged animal flesh in such a context. Even still it was warned that the animals with the "life blood" in them must not be eaten for "the blood is the [presence of] life."

Later while wandering in the desert Wilderness the Prophet Musa (as) was told that in such a context it was permissible to kill and eat animals FOR SURVIVAL ONLY. Later when established as a people, the Tribes continued this tradition of killing animals for food. Many Prophets were raised up among them and spoke out against this. Among them were Isaiah, Daniel, Shadrak, Meshak, Abedneggo, Amos, Solomon, Judah Maccabee, and the like (peace be upon them all).

Soon after the revolutionary movement of Judah Maccabee (as) Yahya (as) and `Isa al-Masih (as) arrived on the scene speaking of the abrogation of flesh consumption as well. Even the canonical books of the new testament - in greek - retain the truth that Yahya (as) was vegetarian (in Greek). Though in english this is most often mistranslated that he ate "locust" rather than the actual word which means "carob pods."

As well in Al-Injil, the original, unaltered Aramaic Gospel which was handed down esoterically for 2,000 years, we are told that `Isa (as) absolutely opposed flesh consumption when it was not necessary for survival. He went so far as to physically restrain those who abused and killed animals needlessly.

Many apocryphal texts (meaning Scriptures that did not coincide with the status quo in 325 a.d.) state that Maryam (as) the mother of `Isa (as) was a vegetarian Nazirite (as were all Nazirites). This same apocryphal source also tells of some of the Qur'anic tales of `Isa (as) making "golem"-like birds out of clay, etc.

Later the Prophet Muhammad (sal) came speaking also of compassion for ALL life. He himself ate very little animal food. He did so ONLY as Musa (as) did so, because he was a desert dweller.

Muhammad (sal) told us that there is a reward for compassion to every living thing. Abd Allah Ibn Mas'ud reported: "We were travelling with the Messenger of Allah. On the way, he moved away from us for a certain need. In his absence, we saw a bird with its two chicks. We caught the two chicks and carried them with us, but their mother followed us, hovering and screaming over our heads. When the Prophet returned, he saw the mother bird hovering over us. He realized what had happened, and he said: 'Who tormented this bird by taking away her chicks? Return her chicks to her!'" - Abu Dawud, Sunan, vol. 4, p. 419-420

Muhammad (sal) like Musa (as) implemented "Kosher" or "Halaal" methods of slaughter in such conditions so that the animal would feel as little pain as possible. It is clear that the ideal was to reduce the amount of suffering that the individual Muslim incurred upon ANY living being.

Recently M.R. Bawa Muhaiyaddeen (ra) re-manifested towards the end of his long life and likewise spoke of the reality of abrogating flesh consumption. There are also prophecies after prophecies in the Nevi'im of the Old Testament that speak of the Messiah being vegetarian. Even pre-deluvian, pre-Egyptian portions of the Book of the Dead allude to the Messiah being vegetarian. This is not at all something that one must make up as they go along. The fluidity and continuity of the Divine Message is a fundamental Reality of the One and Only true Din throughout the history of mankind. This understanding of the Unity of Faith is a Reality that Shaiytan has gone to great lengths throughout history to conceal. This is the Final Truth for global Salvation.

Vegetarianism in the Old Testament

According to Genesis, the first book of the Taurah, the initial diet of humanity was a pure vegetarian diet:

This is the first commandment given in the Taurah, regarding dietary restrictions. What might strike one as somewhat odd, is the fact that this was not a commandment that was being handed down to the Prophets for the purpose of social reform. This was simply how all of the first human beings are recorded as having eaten, according to the Book and the Prophets.

Furthermore, some have concocted obscure interpretation of this passage to justify their conventional diet; noting that this passage states that even the non-human animals subsisted upon vegetation. In Truth, to the contemporary mind that sees nothing but a Hellenized, overly-literal understanding of the Taurah, reconciling anything with their superstitious views would prove impossible. For surely lions did not abstain from flesh consumption in the state of Eden. The point is that in a state of Eden, as little suffering was, and shall be incurred.

To come at this verse with a westernized outlook will invariably doom us to failure. Unfortunately for modern Christians and so-called "Jews" who actually seek out the Truth, their religion has virtually bared adherents from accepting any writings other than those approved by the Council of Nicea in 325 a.d. (in the case of Christianity), or those which are endorsed by the rabbinical elite, (in the case of "Judaism"). Conversely, it is no secret among the Children of Ishaq (as), that there was a written Taurah given to Musa (as) in the Holy Mountain and their was also the, esoteric tradition that was only to be passed down orally.

For many years these teachings went virtually unwritten. Some of the books of the Old Testament, following the Pentatuch, contain additional textual drafts of this oral tradition. However, the Nazirenes were some of the first people to actually commit such teachings to writing in the original Injil, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and many of the Gnostic texts compiled and buried out of the censors’ reach in Nag Hammadi, Egypt.

At the same time, many of the most explanatory and accepted books of what is now termed "Qabalah," (literally: "The Receiving," which were also some of the writings transcribed from oral tradition), were penned by authors in Province, France and Cordoba, Spain. Both of these regions were areas where prominent Nazirene political exiles fled to after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 a.d., the latter becoming a flourishing center of Sufi Islam

In such texts as the Zohar, it is expounded that "Eden" is both our point of origin and also our evolutionary destination. This meaning that there is a "Superior Eden," and an "Inferior Eden." Accordingly, the Superior Eden is the endpoint, the destination, the final stage in all evolution, to which all life in the manifest world is evolving towards. This is literally what is termed "the Era of Masih" or the "Messianic Age."

Bearing this in mind - in an allegoric manner - the state of superior, enlightened Eden is the destination of all life. Accordingly - in the context of diet - if the unconscious, or "Inferior Eden" entails that mankind subsist off of vegetables by not knowing any other manner in which to live, then conversely, the conscious, or "superior" Eden would necessitate and imply that all beings, which evolve to the gates of said superior Eden, consciously choose to subsist upon vegetative life as well. This is not to say that all forms of life will necessarily evolve to that stage, rather that all which do will, by definition, have "all plants that bear seed everywhere on Earth, and every tree bearing fruit which yields seed," as theirs for food.

However, after the flood, many Judaic and Christian theologians believe, erroneously, that it was "permissible" in EVERY possible context to kill and eat a non-human animal.

Many site the above reference, to a purely historic occurrence, as their "Divine Permission" to exploit non-human animals for whatever means they might happen to contrive. The Truth of this matter is nothing of the sort that such people perceive.

After the global deluge that the Taurah records happening millennia ago, it is said that Nuh (as) had taken every non-aquatic animal indigenous to his region, aboard an ark that he constructed out of gopher wood. So allow us to visualize this for a moment...The water has begun to dry up, Nuh’s (as) family and all of the animals are delighted to finally get off the dark and dingy boat. Nuh (as) looks around only to find the ground covered with the corpses of drowned animals. Similarly, many fish had probably remained on the dry land, dying after the deluge had subsided.

With this image being held in mind, let us suppose hypothetically, that the traditional belief, that this was when "Elohim-ordained" hunting began, is correct. According to modern misinterpretations of the Taurah, the only living animals Nuh (as) could kill and eat would be those that Allah had just told him to save "Two by two."

Taking this case in point, are we to suppose that, although it was important for these species to be preserved from the destruction of the deluge, now that everything was said and done, Allah decided that it was a alright for Nuh (as) to damn any and every species to extinction - which he would hypothetically be choosing to kill and eat from? For, if one of these animals "two by two," were killed then reproduction would have been impossible. Even the few extra "clean," halaal animals that we are told were taken aboard would have hardly made up for the perpetual slaughter that we are conditioned to believe occurred after the waters subsided.

Now, come back to the image that we left just a moment before. The water had dried up, corpses were left scattered all about, Nuh’s (as) family’s food rations were running low. It is only at this time that verse 9:3 and 4 come in to play.

It is an archeological, and Scriptural fact that our earliest human ancestors were complete vegetarians. Later, after their exodus from the Congo "Gardens" of Central Africa they migrated up towards where modern Ethiopia is today. It is at this point that the first human tools were developed. However, these were not tools for hunting, they were tools for scavenging! For thousands of years this is how our ancestors lived; as scavenger-gatherers. Furthermore, living in such a near-equatorial region around the time of last purported ice-age, (which occurred at the exact same time that our ancestors began scavenging), would definitely give the perception that the entire world had flooded.

More than anything else, the first book of the Taurah is a mystical history of how things came to be as they were at the time of the Exodus, (which is the historical reference point of the Taurah’s original audience). Christianity has conditioned many in the west to think of Musa (as) or his Islamic predecessors in the same way that we perceive those hypocrite religionists, who claim to carry on their spiritual legacy today; with suits, ties, briefcases and the like.

The fact still remains that the people of Genesis were exactly what Musa (as) claimed they were: "Tribes." The allegorical, mystical-interpretative narrative style in which the first book of the Taurah is relayed is exactly the manner in which one would expect to hear a genealogical, brief, yet mystical history of the world told. This does not imply that the history in Genesis was not Divinely inspired, in fact it proves much to the contrary that it was. However, it does demonstrate that great Spiritual works are always processed, or filtered through the human perspective and context of the individual.

The Historical Question of Sacrifice

When we consider the topic of sacrifice, we often are quick to put the early Muslims of the ancient Hebrew tribes in our shoes rather than the other way around. It is easy for one to presume that if sacrifice was altogether wrong and closely linked with primitive pagan rites, then it would have been boldly rejected by all Prophets, in all contexts, and declared accordingly, with no room for compromise, in all manifestations of the Book.

However, we must bear in mind the essential role of context in interpreting ancient writings whether they are religious in nature, or simply historical. First of all, consider just how few people in this "enlightened" day and age - where information is right at our fingertips - have accepted the vegetarian lifestyle, despite the fact that scientific studies have proven time and time again that it is not only the most healthy lifestyle for them, but also for our environment. Now consider that nearly every Prophet was rejected by the majority at some point in their ministry - if not throughout the entirety thereof. It was usually in retrospect that the masses would look back and realized that the cause and effect nature of their actions had been foretold by the Prophets that most paid no mind to. In fact, it was a difficult task - throughout the books of the Old Testament - for the Prophets to simply keep the masses from reverting to the surrounding pagan cultures. This appears to be a large problem in our modern context as well.

The Mosaic Law is full of references to the times, occasions and circumstances under which it was considered appropriate to offer sacrifices of all kinds. On the other hand, there are numerous passages - in the Bible, Injil and Qur’an - which downgrade in importance, or completely reject, animal sacrifice altogether. It is helpful, however, to remember that the ancient tradition of Islam was the first to forego human sacrifice, (as relayed in the story of Abraham and his firstborn son).

All of this aside, some still believe that there was a legitimate allowance made for flesh consumption in every context after the flood. They hold that Nuh (as) desired to eat flesh. However, if Nuh (as) was lacking food after the flood waters subsided, then he would obviously desire to eat just about anything. This post-flood allowance only meant that Allah would not out right stop humans from eating meat. Nor would Hu count as sin that which need be done out of necessity. This did not mean that Allah intended flesh eating to be an ongoing diet for humanity, nor does it change the Reality that the first and the last diet excluded flesh.

However, beyond that, as mentioned earlier, the primary reason for the change from a strict vegetarian diet after the flood, was that the waters had destroyed all of the earth's vegetation. Therefore, there was no alternative at the time. If we consider that Nuh (as) and his descendants still had a lust for flesh and that there was no other food available at the time, then we can conclude that a meat-based diet was only temporary. Proof for this is the ongoing condemnation, by Allah, through Hu’s Prophets, of animal sacrifice and meat eating. Many of the Prophets of Israel knew that by their time, and in their environmental context, the temporary allowance for flesh eating was over.

Islam and Animal Sacrifice

It is an authentically recorded fact that the Seal of the Prophets, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sal) ate very little meat, despite living primarily in a desert region. What we have to ask ourselves is why did the Prophet Muhammad (sal) eat very little meat? In fact the meat he ate right before death was pretty much the only meat people ever witnessed him eating (with a couple exceptions).

Vegetation is severely lacking in the regions where Muhammad (sal) most often resided. An animal-free diet would have led to malnutrition or even death in such a scenario. The ground is far from fertile in such regions and since top-soil could not just be imported in 1,400 years ago the only real choice was that a desert-dweller would have to eat meat. This is the same reason why the Prophet Musa (as) spoke of abrogating meat as a Nazirite ideal, but also ate it in the desert Wilderness when the Tribes were wandering for 40 years.

The Prophet Muhammad (sal) was asked: "Oh Prophet, are we rewarded for kindness to animals?" Muhammad (sal) replied: "There is a reward for kindness to every living thing."

The question of "sin" is purely one of what works and what does not; of perfection or missing the mark of perfection. The hu-man anatomy was not designed to consume flesh. We have spiritually been given higher wisdom to realize both that flesh consumption is not necessary in this setting, and that it causes suffering to others who are a part of the Totality, the Oneness of Allah.

The vegetarian diet was the standard given by Allah to the first hu-man Prophet Adam (as) and many Prophets have foreseen that in the Era of Masih, it would be the Edenic standard that we move forward to once again, although in a Super-Conscious manner.

Context is important in the understanding the meaning of Islam and the nature of its Revelation. This is illustrated in numerous circumstances. For example, the Prophet Muhammad (sal) stated that "a house without dates has no food." So when considered from a contextual perspective, this is perfectly logical and true, as dates are an extremely wholesome food, and a vital source of nutrients for the desert dwellers. However, are we to believe that a people from a region devoid of dates ACTUALLY has no food? Certainly not.

So in relation to meat consumption, we have to understand that the Prophet Muhammad (sal) was sent to a place in which hundreds of animals a day were being killed for food. As this was a pre-existing condition upon his arrival, Allah revealed to Muhammad (sal) a "solution." However, this solution COULD NOT be to eliminate meat consumption altogether - for this would be an impossibility, as a vegetarian diet is simply not a pragmatic means of sustenance in a region as barren as Saudi Arabia.

So then, what COULD be resolved was not only the NUMBER of slaughters per day (which decreased from hundreds to less than 10), but also the manner in which the animals were killed. For this Muhammad (sal) implemented the Halaal method of slaughter. Halaal slaughter was a form of sacrifce that involved not only prayers that declare that Allah is the only One with the Power to take a life, but also necessitated that one look into the eyes of the animal, watching its tears stream down its face, and actually watching the Spirit leave the body. This was all a process designed to not only remove all desire for flesh - thus reducing slaughter to what was needed out of genuine necessity - but also to foster a connection between man and his brother that he has been forced to kill.

This Halaal method of sacrifice is similar to the "Kosher" method of sacrifice which the Prophet Musa (as) brought millennia earlier. Hu’s Message is Eternal and unchanging. Live in Submission to Allah. Respect ALL as though ALL were yourself. Inflict suffering only when no other option exists...

So with this understanding, and from numerous Qur'anic ayaat which DEMAND the utmost compassion for ALL life, we can clearly see that the Edenic ideal has certainly always been that of a vegetarian diet (for all Prophets that were able to eat vegetarian, did). The exceptions were again based on contextual circumstances, and in such cases, they ALWAYS stressed the highest possible degree of Compassion.

In this day and age, mass-communication, mass-transportation and international trade has induced a situation where a plant-based diet can be more wide-spread (even in many barren regions where it formerly could not be).

Allah told us to eat what is "good" and "permissible" not merely one or the other. That is because first and foremost we must know what is "permissible" for us to eat. And then we must decide contextually if that would be a "good" decision for us to eat or if it was given as halaal for those in a context wherein it was fundamental to survival. When the actual suffering of another sentient being is at stake, as well as detrimental impact upon the environment and natural resources, the truly "good" option is a plant-based diet. Thus, in a climate such as ours, where vegetarianism is completely plausible and pragmatic, eating the flesh of animals truly cannot be considered halaal.

Musa and the Law

Musa (as) also knew that the meat diet was temporary and that the intended Law of Allah included a vegetarian diet. However, mankind's heart had become so callused and selfish that, during his time, Musa (as) could not have introduced pure vegetarianism to the Hebrew Tribes, for they would not have listened to him and would have turned from Allah altogether.

Beyond that, it is important to note that when the Taurah was received, the 12 Tribes were exiled in the desert Wilderness. Plant life would have been scarce to say the least. Not one of the Hebrew exiles would have claimed that their situation was ideal at all. Therefore, Musa (as), in accordance with Allah 's plan, allowed animal sacrifice and meat eating. This however, was a compromise to help guide mankind back to a life of pure Compassion. Thus, we are told that Allah had Musa (as) institute a very strict set of rules for the killing of and sacrificing of animals. The Apostle Peter (as) tells us the following:

This last line refers to `Isa al-Masih (as), when he came to abolish animal sacrifice. Accordingly, `Isa (as) said the following:

It was only during this time of darkness, (from the flood, up to about 700 BC), that God "allowed" the people of Judea to eat meat. That is why we find certain passages, such as Leviticus 11:3-22 and Deuteronomy 14:4-9 telling the Hebrews which animals they could eat and which ones they could not. These dietary laws, along with the strict slaughtering procedures, were designed to wean mankind from meat altogether, (once they were out of the wilderness and were established as a nation). They were never intended to serve as an example for all times and all contexts.

Since sacrifices were the universal expression of religion in that period, if Musa (as) had tried to eliminate them, his mission of spreading Pure Islam - moving forward to Eden - would have failed and disappeared, or rather would never have emerged in prominence. The parallel between his situation and that of Muhammad (sal) is identical.

Animal sacrifices were confined to one central location and the then common practice of human sacrifices and idolatrous practices of the neighboring pagan peoples were eliminated. The Prophets of the Tanukh often spoke of sacrifices as an abomination to YHVH. After the destruction of the Temple, the rabbis stated that sacrifices should be replaced by prayer and good deeds. Not all sacrifices involved eating animals for food. "Whole-offerings" were entirely given up, with nothing left behind, but the "shared-offerings" involved a sacrifice of parts of the animal, while the rest was eaten. The evidence in the Bible does demonstrate a relationship between sacrifice and flesh consumption. While not all sacrifices involved slaughtering for food, all slaughtering for food, (in accordance with halaal specifications purported to "reduce suffering"), implied sacrifice. In Leviticus 17:3-4 it is stated that:

The gist of this is that any slaughtering not exclusively for the sake of legitimate sustenance was bloodshed.

Rage of the Prophets

When the time was right, Allah spoke out against animal sacrifice and flesh eating through Hu’s Prophets. Though others came before them, these Prophets began to be raised up around the 700’s b.c. Not only did Allah send Prophets, such as Isaiah, Amos and Hosea, (peace be upon them) to the Hebrews during this time, but Allah also sent Prophets to the surrounding nations as well. We find arriving not too long afterwards, Pythagoras (570-500 b.c.); as well as Mahavira (born 599b.c), founder of what is now termed the Jain religion; and Buddha (563-483b.c.). All these Prophets (peace be upon them) spoke out against the harming of and or eating of Animals. These were all among the 124,000 Prophets of Islam. We - as Allah states in the Qur’an - make no difference between any of them.

It is furthermore alluded to in the Taurah, that the advent of ritualistic slaughter itself was descended from the days of more primitive spiritual understanding, (or misunderstanding). Likewise, it is herein alluded that sacrifice has its roots in paganism.

It is interesting to note that at the same time that these things were being written, in other regions of the world, such as India and Greece, there was an increasing identification between meat consumption and religious sacrifice; flesh could only be consumed if part of sacrifice. This brings an entirely new perspective to the discussion of animal sacrifice in the Bible. It is not only a discussion of the sacrificial rite; it is also a discussion of flesh consumption as well. Similarly, in many of the prophetic Writings, sacrifices and subsequently, flesh consumption, are strongly attacked:

Similarly, such strong language can be found in Isaiah 1:11-16. Verses such as Hosea 6:6, Micah 6:6-8 state that sacrifices are definitely unnecessary.

Of course it will be the first pre-programmed, knee-jerk reaction of any devout flesh eater to suppose that such verses are subject to interpretation. Were the Prophets attacking the practice of sacrifice itself, or were they simply opposing the behavior of the people of their culture; stating that their sacrifices were hypocritical or null and void due to their contrary lifestyles? To one who is insistent upon exploiting religion to condone their hedonistic desires, this will be a difficult case to prove. However, the rage of the notorious vegetarian Isaiah, must prove at least partially convincing that it was the practice of animal sacrifice itself that was being assaulted:

In passages such as Ezekiel 20:21-26 there is insinuation that Allah was having second thoughts concerning some of the "Mosaic statutes." A more realistic interpretation of this would point out that it was not Allah whose Mind changed, but rather the modern Prophetic understanding of that day that was beginning to view the Divine Will in a more objective and clear light. Thus, they were beginning to see that it was somewhat different than the historic practices of the people.

However, no verse appears to us in as much clarity and unambiguity than the mysterious addition found in early Greek manuscripts of Daniel, between chapters 3:23 and 3:24. When it was ruled by the pagan, sun-worshipping Emperor Constantine and his "Council of Nicea," to be "heretical," it was removed. Since then it has been most readily accessible in the Apocrypha, found in between the Old and the New Testaments in the Catholic Bible under the title of "The Song of the Three," or "The Song of the Holy Three."

In this section, Daniel was away from Babylon, embarked on a journey for King Nebuchadnezzar. During his departure, his fellow vegetarian Nazirites; "Shadrach, Meshach and Abedneggo," (peace be upon them) were to be made an example of by the Babylonian forces that opposed their righteous ways. To make a long story short, they wound up being sentenced to death in the huge furnaces that were used to bake bricks for the Babylonian empire. During their purported execution in the furnace, the three Nazirites were said to have prayed, finally being saved by the Divine presence of Allah in the form of the primordial Messiah; Al-Khidr. So far, this much passed the censor’s knife and remains in the book of Daniel today. However the section that was removed details just what was said in their prayers and meditations amidst the flames from which they emerged unscathed.

After their prayers were heard and they were delivered from the flames, the three Nazirites rejoiced, instructing the Earth to rejoice and give praises to Allah ta’ala. They continue on instructing the same to non-human animals. With such controversial contents it is with little difficulty that we can understand why the Roman State opposed such doctrines. Furthermore, regardless of one’s take on this passage, it is clear from both "heretical" and mainstream sources that these Babylonian exiles did not partake in sacrifice, yet nonetheless their prayers were heard and they did not fail to enact the Divine Will.

Again, the Taurah was penned by a people wandering in the desert. The Taurah proclaims that we must only incur suffering when absolutely necessary. For individuals living in the desert it was not always certain that they could subsist upon a vegetable based diet. Accordingly the Taurah contains many laws pertaining to Kosher regulations of how to sacrifice an animal and then eat it. So too does the Qur’an direct those dwelling in similar desert regions as Musa (as) and Muhammad (sa) to instate these halaal and kosher methods of slaughter. These laws were purported to reduce suffering in a situation where vegetarianism was not an option.

However, most in this age do not live in the desert, nor are we fugitive slaves who can not turn back to a land where we could sustain a plant-based diet. We live in a world where we can easily reduce the suffering of non-human animals and the environment by eating a vegetarian diet. Such a lifestyle is exactly in tune with the Spirit of the Taurah despite the fact that there are instances where meat eating is condoned when no vegetable life is present.

In regards to killing, Muhammad (sal) unequivocally stated "Do not be excessive!" Accordingly, if we are to take this Hadith seriously then we must refuse any food that is a product of death and suffering unless it is absolutely necessary for survival. When it is necessary for survival, then the Prophets have revealed certain Halaal/Kosher methods of slaughter to keep the suffering of the animal to an absolute minimum.

There can be no doubt that Allah wanted humanity to elevate itself above such barbaric practices, for through the Prophet Hosea (as) Allah said:

Referring to animal sacrifices, Allah said through Hu’s Prophet Isaiah (as):

An Accurate Portrayal of the Nazirenes

Though there were many sects in the Din at the time of `Isa (as), these groups can be divided into two camps. First of all there were the Temple and Priestly centered groups; i.e., the groups that believed in animal sacrifice, such as the Sadducees and Pharisees. The other camp was made up of more spiritually minded Jews who followed the teachings of the Prophets, who in turn spoke out against animal sacrifice. These latter, pro-prophet groups included a number of unknown small sects, as well as the now infamous Essenes.

Out of these pro-Prophet groups came `Isa (as), the Prophet and Messiah of Allah, along with his followers, referred to throughout church history as the Ebionites, ("the Poor") or as the Nazirenes, ("Nazirite-Essenes"). Once this latter group was eventually hunted down and murdered by their opposition, they were soon to be replaced by a group known as the Christians, who were started by Paul.

The Nazirines made up the first century church and pre-date the Roman Catholic, Coptic and Eastern Orthodox Churches by almost 300 years. This fact is attested to by history as found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the New Testament. The precedence of the Nazirene church serves to show that the doctrine of strict vegetarianism was a part of the original teachings of `Isa (as) and the Prophets before him for that matter.

According to both `Isa (as) and Saint Stephen (as), the Sanhedrin during `Isa’s (as) time was corrupt. The so-called "Jewish" authorities, the Sanhedrin in particular, were made up of mostly Sadducees. They, along with the Pharisees were pro-Priestly and anti-Prophet and therefore, favored animal sacrifice. `Isa (as) and Saint Stephen (as), on the other hand, were of the pro-Prophet lineage and thus, opposed animal sacrifice. `Isa (as) says to the Pharisitic authorities of the Sanhedrin in his day: "Thus by your own tradition, handed down among you, you make God's word null and void." Mark 7:13

Also, `Isa (as) says: "You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do." John 8:44

St. Stephen, talking to the Jewish authorities, says: "You stubborn and stiff-necked people, still heathen and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are always actively resisting the Holy Spirit. As your forefathers [were], so you [are and so you do]! Which of the Prophets did your forefathers not persecute?" Acts 7:51 & 52

Beyond that, Yahya (as) known as "John the Baptist" is described by the Gospel writers, and documented by Josephus, as a "Righteous One" or "Tzaddik." Yaqub (as) the Brother of `Isa (as), also is depicted as being "Consecrated" from his mother’s womb, depicted as abstaining from wine, strong drink, and animal foods. We also read specifically that Yaqub (as) did not wear wool but only linen.

Often Yaqub’s (as) vegetarianism and the peculiar dietary habits of many of these charismatic Revolutionaries or "innovators," as the notorious sell-out and historian Josephus said, was taken to be nothing more than asceticism. How ironic that in this day, fundamentalist Wahabi-ists often claim similar things of modern day Muslims who live vegetarian. From what we can see through the valid historical documentation of Yaqub (as) and the "Nazirite-Essenes," (or "Nazirienes"), this is not the case. It has more to do with the demands of what is termed "all Righteousness" and "perfect Holiness."

As well, Josephus refers to a prominent political figure of his time who is referred to under the title "Banus." His descriptions of this man completely matches his descriptions of `Isa’s (as) brother Yaqub (as) in later works. Josephus describes him as living "in the wilderness," (a popular pseudonym for the Essenic "Qumran community"). He was also said to eat only "what grew of its on accord," meaning obviously that he consumed no animal products.

Josephus, in reference to the revolutionary insurgents Ananias (not to be confused with the Ananias of the New Testament "Ananias and Saphira" story), and Ananus, states that the two were arrested: "On a small and trifling charge...put in bonds and sent to Rome to plea their case before Caesar when Felix was procurator of Judea."

Unfortunately Josephus does not tell us what these "trifling charges" were for which these "certain priests" were being held for as long a five years or more. However, his silence, in and of itself is quite telling, (considering Josephus had sold out the Hebrew Uprising that so many "priests" were being arrested and executed in connection with. He does, in fact, mention that like Yaqub (as), Ananias (ra) and Ananus (ra) we "very excellent men" and, on account of "their Piety towards God" they were vegetarians.

It is under this heading of "piety towards God" that Josephus - in his lengthy dissertation of the Essenes in the "War" - describes how they "rose before the sun" and prayed toward "the rising sun...bathing their bodies in cold water." Like the priests and `Isa (as) himself, they were said to have worn nothing but white linen when they bathed and ate.

The incarcerated priests were described as followers of the previously mentioned "Banus." Any one with a mild knowledge of the works of Josephus and early Nazirene history, will recognize "Banus" instantly as Yaqub (as) the brother of `Isa (as), who lead the revolutionary sect after the attempted assassination of his brother. Similarly, Josephus relays that all of the incarcerated priests, not only Ananius (ra) and Ananus (ra) but all who were arrested and held under similar charges, were "Essene"-types or "Rechabite Priests" of the "Jamesian" stripe, choosing to eat nothing but nuts and dates throughout the duration of their incarceration. Taking up the "Righteous One" or Tzaddik theme again, where it is associated with Nuh (as), the first "Tzaddik" mentioned in the book of Genesis. We see an expedition as follows in the Zohar:

The Genesis 9:4 proscription on "blood," - an integral feature of the basic "First covenant" with Musa (as) in the Holy Mountain and the legendary "Noachid" one preceding it - also constitutes the first and most fundamental elements in Yaqub’s (as) prohibitions to overseas communities, to which Paul seems to be responding in 1^st Corinthians 6-11.

The proscription on blood also relates to Yaqub’s (as) Naziritism and vegetarianism. In turn, these will have to do with a new group embodying many of such Nazirite traits, the Biblical "Rechabites," known also, for their proscription on wine, which is another trait early Church sources will ascribe to Yaqub (as).

In Hebrew, the word "Nazir," meaning "Consecrated or separated," is based on a root meaning "set aside" or "keep away from." One should remark the play on this word represented by the designation "Nazirene" applied to `Isa (as) and to his Brother Yaqub’s (as) followers as well. In Hebrew "Nazirene," (also spelled Nazoraean, or Nazarean), has a slightly different root, meaning "keeping" or "Keeper." This title is insinuative of the verse in Genesis where Cain, (the embodiment of the totalitarian agriculturist "Aryan" race from the Caucus mountains), cynically questions Allah if he is his "brother keeper."

Accordingly, if we visualize the antithesis of Cain, (that being Abel), then we see a people who have a stronger leaning towards being "Keepers." The fact that the term Nazirene neglects specification of which facet of existence they seek to be "keepers" in leads one to believe that, as their actions demonstrated, a true "Nazirite," one separating from wickedness, must strive to be the "Keeper" or "Tzaddik" of the world. Along these same lines one might note that Seth (as) was to inherit the birthright of Abel (as) and thus be a sort of refinement or resurrection of Abel. The Nag Hammadi "Gnostic" Gospels never cease in relating `Isa (as) to Seth (as).

Furthermore, this insinuates the notion of "caretaker," so often ascribed to the Genesis verse on dominion by many modern spiritual environmentalists. Furthermore, there is absolutely no difference between this terminology and the concepts ascribed to it and the conceptualizations ascribed to the notion of Tzaddikim, or Righteous Ones, ("The Righteous are the foundation of the Earth").

Not only is this "Nazirite" ideology sometimes expressed as "Nazirene," but one should also note the play on it represented by the Hebrew term "Nazir," the "Crown" or "diadem" worn by high priests, which bore a plate inscribed with the words, "Holy to YHVH."

Both "the Diadem" and these words have important notices recorded in early church tradition about Yaqub (as). In Hebrew, "Nazir" also has the secondary meaning of the unshorn lock of the Nazirite - their "Crown," so to speak - which tradition also says was worn by Yaqub (as). The symbolism inherent in this may have particular relevance regarding Act’s substitution of the stoning of "Stephen," (as) a name also bearing the meaning of "Crown" in Greek, for the attack on or stoning of Yaqub (as) the brother of `Isa (as).

Unfortunately, when Rome slaughtered the remnants of the early Jerusalem church and their revolutionary communities, they also cut future Christianity’s original cord to the true understanding of the Taurah, and the Islamic Message of `Isa (as). In mistranslated Scripture, the term "Nazirene" often gets rephrased, particularly in translations as "of" or "from Nazareth."

For Church historians such as Eusebius, Epiphanius and Jerome, Yaqub (as) was perceived as a life-long "Nazirite" and "vegetarian;" terms that are synonymous with each other in the Bible. There is, however, one notable exception to that rule; where Samson is depicted as drinking milk, eating meat and drinking intoxicants. This was purported to demonstrate the hypocrisy he was living in before being betrayed by Delila. As Eusebius puts it quoting Hegesippus in regards to Yaqub’s (as) Naziritism: "He drank no wine or strong drink, nor did he eat meat."

Hellenistic Perversions of Al-Masih

Most remain under the impression that non-human animals were put on Earth - by Allah - for us to use as we see fit. In their minds, this includes needlessly testing household products on them, making a mockery of their pristine beauty in circus’, eating and hunting them for sport or food when other viable options of nutrition exist in most regions today. Contrary to popular opinion, such notions are diametrically opposed to what Allah has commanded.

When we make personal comfort the goal of our life - rather than awakening to the mind of Al-Masih - then Compassion goes out the window, with greed and apathy taking its place. `Isa al-Masih (as) himself abrogated this unscrupulous manner of living. He called us to be in the world but not of the world. We are all the People of Allah and Scripture tells us that Allah will work all things out in the fullness of time.

It is a tragedy that secular organizations are today often the ones leading the way in the Animal Liberation movement, when in the 1800’s and millennia prior, it had been those dedicated to serving the Divine Will. Extending the ethic of love and redemption to the rest of creation, is quite simply the next logical step from one’s re-version to the Din of Islam.

If we have really re-verted to the Peace, and to the Love of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful, then how can we not reach out to the very living beings that Hu created; thus seeking only to inflict suffering when it is absolutely necessary? Any suffering inflicted in excess, beyond what is necessary for survival, is clearly a trapping of the nafs, the lower ego-based self.

“What Would Jesus Do?”

Many Christians everywhere tend to depict ‘Isa (as) in an image contrary to reality. Throughout history he was depicted as a white man with a fully-developed trim beard, strong European features and not the slightest physical blemish aside from the stigmata upon his hands, and feet. Much evidence in recent history has proven, that on the contrary, the historical personage known as `Isa (as), was very different than the Euro-centric depiction of him.

Documents from Rome indicate that the Roman government had a warrant for the arrest of a man going by that name. He was depicted as short, with tan skin, a pronounced nose, a uni-brow and an undeveloped, scraggly beard. Similarly, the story of Zacheus states only that Zacheus could not see ‘Isa (as) because "he was too short." Historically we have been told that the "he" in this story was Zacheus, when there is no clear evidence from that passage who is being referred to as too short.

Along this same vein misunderstandings and misinterpretations, we are finding out now that the historical belief that `Isa (as) ate meat has no precedence anywhere in the Bible. Students of esoteric Hebrew mysticism acknowledge the basic fact that different allegoric concepts were utilized throughout oral and written tradition, to convey hidden and deeper meanings. Notions that `Isa (as) fed the multitudes with one boy’s lunch of fish and bread was very unlikely intended to be taken literally by true seekers. First of all, this traditional, literalist belief defies the very words of `Isa (as) himself. For when he was alone, meditating and fasting in the "wilderness," it is said that he was tempted to turn a stone into bread so he could eat. This was at the end of his fast, according to the passage, so we can only presume that this would not have merely been wrong because he had been fasting. Regardless, `Isa (as) is depicted as submitting to the gripes of the hungry masses who were listening to his lectures, by "magically" multiplying the fish and bread of a boy’s lunch. If taken literally, these two stories stand in stark contradiction.

First of all, if this were to be taken at face value, then this still proves nothing about what `Isa (as) ate, for the passage never says that `Isa (as) ate of it. As well if we see that `Isa (as) did not break fast, then the story of feeding the multitudes would no more indicate that he are fish than it would indicate that he broke fast. Similarly, this would merely be stretching the use of food that someone else had killed and other people, (who presumably would eat such things), were eating. Accordingly, this passage does not, in any way, indicate that `Isa (as) ate meat. According to a Coptic fragment, the Acts of Thomas; the History of Yahya (as), and the writings of the Early Church Father Irenaeus, `Isa (as) did not serve fish to the masses, but rather, he served only bread.

In fact, the canonical Gospels record him as calling his disciples away from lives as fishermen; "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men." Accordingly, the fact that his disciples were fishermen provides more evidence to the contrary, than for the notion that `Isa (as) ate meat. At the last supper, when many other Jewish families were eating lamb, `Isa (as) and his disciples are recorded only as eating matzo and wine. Note that in the context of this passage this was watered-down, fermented juice that contained only enough alcohol to destroy the bacteria of the region’s water.

In fact, ironically enough, the only reference throughout the entire New Testament, that states that `Isa (as) ate meat, is in Luke 24:42. Herein, `Isa (as) is traditionally understood to have been murdered, then resurrected, and now he is portrayed as asking his disciples for food. Again, it is said that they gave him fish. Before delving any further, one cannot have their proverbial cake and eat it too. Either `Isa (as) had died and come back to life, being the same para-ghostly figure described in Acts, or he had not and was literally hungry for literal fish. However, Muslims do not believe that there is any truth whatsoever to the modern day literalistic post-resurrection stories.

As opposed to the Ascensions of Idris (as), Ilyas (as) and Musa (as), `Isa’s (as) supposedly physical Ascension is recorded or at least commonly believed to have occurred:

• After he had already died,

• When he was relatively young in age and

• When he decided that he was done on Earth

If the true nature of this purported "death" and Ascension are to be refuted, then there is absolutely no logic in accepting this single verse. It is not within the scope of this discussion to delve into what all of the esoteric symbolism of these canonical Gospel accounts mean. However, it should suffice to say that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars that the earliest Greek accounts of the Gospels did not contain any reference to what happened after the crucifixion of `Isa (as). In fact many Bibles still note this in their translations of the Gospel of Mark.

Furthermore, if we are to believe that Allah cares even the slightest bit about non-human animal life or of the resources of this world, then it is positively foolish to believe that `Isa (as) (who is depicted as being in a spiritual body), would eat anything at all when he did not need to. This is just another prominent example of the logical contradiction of the literalist Christian belief that `Isa (as) "died and went to Heaven" at the age of 33.

Again, just as is the case with Scriptural writings throughout the ages, especially those relayed in a story format, we must always look for the symbolic value of what is being said. With the emergence of the Christian church was the dawning of the age of Pisces. Similarly, the early church used the ICTHUS, or pictorial depiction of a fish as the symbol of unity in their faith. Furthermore, just like in the book of Genesis, when two "Angels" are said to have been fed physical food, the esoteric understanding of those passages reveals a different, yet constant allegorical language altogether.

Finally, the idea that convinces most vegetarians to adopt such a rarely treaded path of compassion, is by committing themselves to seeking and following Truth as it is presented. `Isa (as) himself said: "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." Looking at the massive amounts of nutritional research that indicates that eating a plant-based diet is better than eating animal products and accordingly a healthy vegetarian diet will likely enable us all to live happier, healthier and fuller lives. All of this clearly indicates that the vegetarian diet points us in the direction of Truth, just as `Isa (as) does.

If one wishes to follow the Din of `Isa (as) in their everyday life then foremost of their concerns should be to follow logical ideas that have been shown by science to be correct and the best way for us to live, ethically ecologically, and nutritionally. In a very real and fundamental way, the ideas that we glean from accurate, unbiased scientific research can be tools to guide us towards the same Absolute Truth that spiritual figures like `Isa (as) represent.

As Muslims, if we are to deny the words of `Isa (as) as they were spoken in unaltered form 2,000 years ago, then what should make us presume that we will believe his words when they are spoken in the era of Dajjal? When `Isa and Al-Mahdi emerge in the capacity as Witnesses to Allah’s Perfect and unchanging Reality, will you be among those who stand and fight, arm in arm with them? Or will you instead be among the majority of those claiming to be Muslims in this age, who - according to Muhammad (sal) - will be the furthest from the true Spirit of Islam?

The Sunnah of `Isa (as) and Other Vegetarian Prophets

While many Anbiya were vegetarian, the one that Muslims should most closely be aware of is Nabi `Isa al-Masih (as). For unlike the other Anbiya, it is `Isa (as) who is said to Return with Imam Al-Mahdi (as). Ahadith bears witness that `Isa (as) will prostrate in Salat behind “the Imam” al-Mahdi. So without delving into what literally dozens of Christian and pre-Christian Gospel accounts of `Isa (as) say about him abstaining from flesh consumption, allow us to view several of the Islamic Ahadith that record the dietary habits of `Isa (as) - the one who will Return and slay Al-Masih ad-Dajjal according to the beliefs of all Muslims across the globe.

Notes: Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak )d. 181/797), al-Zuhd, p. 198 (no. 563). Cf. Ibn Abd Rabbihi, al-`Iqd, 3:143; Ibn Asakir, Sirat, p. 138, no. 128 (Asin, p. 541, no. 111; Mansur, no 9; Robson, p. 73).

Notes: Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855), al-Zuhd, p. 98 (no. 326). Ibn Qutbayba, Uyun al-Akhbar, 2:363; Ibn Abi al-Dunya, Kitab Dhamm al- Dunya, in Mawsu'at Rasa'il, 2:275, excerpt no. 138: Ikhwan al-Safa', Rasa'il Ikhwan al-Safa', 3:34; and al-Ghazali, Ihya', 4:180 (Asin, p. 400, no. 70; Mansur, no. 152; Robson, p. 70 [shorter version]).

Notes: Abu Rifa'a al-Fasawi (d. 289/902), Kitab Bad' al-Khalq, p. 333. Cf. Ibn `Asakir, Sirat, p. 133, no. 120.

Notes: Abu al-Layth al-Samarqandi (d. 373/983), Tanbih al-Ghafilin, p. 125 (Asin, p. 557, no. 139; Mansur, no. 39; Robson, pp. 74-75).

Notes: Al-Raghib al-Isfahani (early fifth/early eleventh century), Mahadarat al-Udaba', 1:610.

Notes: Abu Nu`aym al-Isbahani (d. 430/1038), Hilyat al-Awliya', 6:314 (Asin, pp. 374-375, no. 44; Mansur, no. 80; Robson, pp. 67-68.

Particular attention must be paid to the last Hadith, where it is stressed "If you wish, you may repeat what the Possessor of the Word and the Ruh, `Isa Ibn Maryam, used to say… the produce of the earth is my food and fruit…” Thus it is Islamically impossible for any Muslim to say that one “may not” say “the produce of the earth is my food and fruit” when here permission is granted.

The Qur'an tells us that Isa (as) told people what to eat, and these Ahadith tell us that what he ate and told others to eat was plant based food alone. As well, if Prophet Isa al-Masih (as) ate no flesh or animal products 2,000 years ago, then why do so many imagine that he would be ANY different when he returns with the Holy Imam al-Mahdi (as)? And with that in mind, it would serve to reason that the Imam himself might actually be abstinent from flesh foods if Isa (as), his closest companion, is.

We must distinguish is between blind imitation of the Prophet (sal) and following the SPIRIT of his Sunnah. For the Qur'an does not say that the Sunnah's of all other 123,999 Prophets were "different" Allah says that with Muhammad (sal) the Din was "Perfected." That means that all of the other stages of Prophetic Revelation and unfolding were foundations and levels placed upon levels, and finally - as Prophet Isa (as) said in the original Hebrew Injil "the stone that the builders refused will be the headstone." This allusion to the headstone of a pyramid is quite revealing and insightfull to our understanding of the nature of Muhammad's (sal) role as the Seal of the Prophets.

Again, the Sunnah of Adam, Nuh, Ibrahim, Ismai'l, Musa, Dawud, and `Isa (alayhum sallam) are not "different" than the Prophet Muhammad's (sal) they are just LESS Universally applicable and LESS complete. The Qur'an refers to their Din and their Sunnah as ISLAM, One and the same as that of the Prophet Muhammad (sal) and the Holy Imam's (alayhum sallam). There is no god, but Allah, and there is no Din of any Prophet but Islam.

Muhammad (sal) lived in a desert region, as did Prophet Musa (as), and like Prophet Musa (as) Muhammad (sal) ate flesh in limited quantities, and gave regulations regarding which flesh could be eaten and how the animal must be treated before and during slaughter. Clearly the concern in such things is for both the humane treatment of the animals (which form Communities of their own according to the Qur'an), and for our own health. With that in mind we must also realize that from the first Prophet Adam (as), to `Isa al-Masih (as) ALL Prophets living in a non-desert context were prone to abstain outrightly from flesh consumption. This is seen in the Sunnah of "Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abedneggo" (alayhum sallam) as well as in the Sunnah of Yahya (as) and `Isa (as). These things cannot be mere coincidence...

The Beginning and the End

Competition to produce inexpensive meat, eggs, and dairy products has inevitably led animal agribusiness to treat animals as commodities rather than living, feeling beings. Animal cruelty laws in the U.S. normally exempt "standard agricultural practices." Those standard practices have resulted in tremendous suffering to forms of life which all 124,000 Prophets have admonished us to be protectors of.

Islam only condones and considers halaal, or permissible the consumption of animal products if this consumption is done out of genuine need for such food as human sustenance. When animals suffer only to satisfy out desire for the taste of their flesh, or for the milk which Allah gave them to nurse their young, then we are not acting out of Submission to the Divine Will, we are acting out of submission to the nafs, the ego.

The Seal of the Prophets, the Holy Muhammad (sal) admonished us to protect, defend and regard as sacred, the lives of all sentient beings. Muhammad (sal) told us that Allah rewards us for kindness to every living being, yet still many sit by and continue to promote the suffering of Allah’s creatures - not for their own survival, as in the case of Prophets such as Musa (as) and Muhammad (sal) - but rather because their nafs has their conscience in a chokehold. They have yet to break away fully from the cultural conditioning of their societies’ pre-Islamic practices, of regarding only mankind as a valid form of life.

According to Steve Cockerham, a USDA inspector at Nebraska slaughterhouses, and former USDA veterinarian Lester Friedlander, some U.S. slaughterhouses routinely skin live cattle and abuse still conscious animals in other ways to keep production lines moving quickly. The men stated that the federal law requiring slaughterhouses to kill animals humanely has been increasingly ignored as meat plants grow bigger. Cockerham said that he often saw plant workers cut the feet, ears, and udders off cattle that were conscious on the production line after stun guns failed to work properly. "They were still blinking and moving. It’s a sickening thing to see," he said.

Truly Halaal meat and animal products are a rare thing to come by. For most of the flesh, milk and the like that comes to stores stamped "Halaal" is in fact not very different than commercial flesh foods. In any event, most food professing to be "Halaal" is not at all obtained in accordance with Islamic mandates of slaughter or pre-slaughter treatment of the animal.

All the meat produced and exported from India is advertised and sold as "halaal." However, many who have sought to directly investigate the truthfulness of these claims were startled to find that the loading and unloading, transport, and slaughter of cows and buffaloes used for meat in southern India is not halaal, but is instead haraam.

The delegation of investigators witnessed such horrendous animal abuse, that was shocking not only in and of itself, but also in light of the many strict Indian anti-cruelty laws and the Indian constitution’s admonition for citizens to show concern for animals. For Muslims, these findings should be disturbing because Islamic teachings of kindness to animals and proper adherence to halaal methods are being blatantly ignored. Therefore at a bare minimum one can say that all of such so-called "halaal" products - as well as any commercial factory farmed animal products - should be avoided by all conscientious Muslims wishing to follow the Spirit of Muhammad’s (sal) righteous example.

Unless the individual is witnessing the care of the animal, and the manner of slaughter, then there can be no certainty that the animal is being killed in accordance with halaal mandates. Unless the slaughterer stares into the animal’s eyes and can say "La ilaha ill-Allahu," and recite the Third Kalimah, with true Knowledge of its spiritual meaning, then the meat is haraam.

Unless the slaughterer can watch the tears stream down the animal’s face, and listen to it cry out in agony as it dies, then the meat is haraam. And if these things can be done by the slaughterer, if he truly understands the meaning of "haraam" and "halaal," if he truly knows the meaning of the Kalimah, then he will by definition not chose to incur such pain and suffering, unless there is truly a need for it. For if he did incur such suffering when it was unnecessary, then it can be clear that he did not understand the Kalimah, that he lacked comprehension of Qurban. That is a very far reality from what passes as "halaal" in this modern age where so many have forgotten the true Spirit of Islam.

Following a vegetarian diet, an Ital, “Vital” or "Total" diet, that Allah predestined humanity to eat, is the way to avoid complicity in the inherent cruelties of animal agriculture. Some misinterpret empathy for animals as a weakness. Ironically, standing up against cruelty is actually an act of strength - especially when most people merely folllow the crowd.

Being in a majority [status] is not an indication of the truth, on the contrary, the opposite is the case. The Most High says: "If you obey most of those who are on earth, they will mislead you from the path of God" (6:116). Hu also said: "Most of the people will not have faith, however hard you try" (12:103).

As well, it is an act of spiritual courage, and strength to restrict what one buys, wears or eats in order to show compassion to their brothers and sisters in the Creation of Allah. Most are content to regurgitate the mere letter of the Law, regarding permissibility of consuming animal products, while ignoring the context of such. However, the true People of Allah are those who sincerely devote themselves to unrestricted Submission to the Will of Allah. Such are those who march forward to an Era of Eden, led and implemented by the Holy Imam al-Mahdi. The People of Allah are those who look beyond the outward, and penetrate the veil of duality and division between "you" and "i", between "animal" and "man," to see and practice the ultimate Reality that Nothing exists, only Allah.

Allah alone is Master. The belly is not man’s master. The tongue is not man’s master. Societal conditionings are not man’s master. If Allah tells us, through Hu’s Prophets, that we are to respect the lives of animals then we will do everything within our power and context to ensure that no harm comes to any innocent life. When environmental contexts necessitate that some animal products be consumed, then we will follow halaal methods of obtaining such sustenance, and follow the Sunnah of Muhammad (sal) in eating as little meat as possible. However, when this is not necessary, we will not cause suffering where no suffering is necessary. Our actions can make a powerful public statement against the current treatment of animals. That is the true meaning of being stewards of Creation, and the Khilafah of Allah on Earth as in Heaven.