Lucky Charms Cereal (Important Notice)
Nader Hussain
marshmellows gelatin has pork products in them.
Brian Soothill
arms trading is fine............but whatever u do dont eat the marshmellow
with pork products in it.............mmmmmmm
"Nader Hussain" <nader_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a631gm$sl8$1...@samba.rahul.net...
thebit
> Terrorism,
Which has nothing to do with Islam...
> abortion of female fetuses,
Which has nothing to do with Islam...
> the dehumanising or women,
Which has nothing to do with Islam...
> drugs and
> arms trading is fine
Which has nothing to do with Islam...
So what, may I ask, has this post to do with Islam?
G. Waleed Kavalec
and
> arms trading is fine............but whatever u do dont eat the marshmellow
> with pork products in it.............mmmmmmm
>
>
>
Nice try. No the above are NOT fine. They are forbidden acts, too.
So stop calling the people who do them Muslim.
The nuts in Waco called themselves Christian. Were they?
--
G. Waleed Kavalec
-------------------
Do not act in response to how you wish the world was.
Act in response to how the world is.
Saqib Virk
and
> arms trading is fine............
That is only your opinion but most people disagree. Why are you posting to
SRI?
--
S Virk
elmer swanson
> "Brian Soothill" <jsoo...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<a69ihe$fas$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
Does the gelatin in Lucky Charms marshmellows that (allegedly) has
pork product have anything more to do with Islam than abortion or arms
trading or terrorism or whatever?
Isn't the point Soothill is trying to make that Islamists are getting
bogged down in minutia of doctrine when there are much greater evils
in the world that need tending to?
I mean if there is gelatin from pork in Lucky Charms marshmellow
(rather than Nader Hussain working for Lucky Charm's competition) how
much hard is it actually doing compared to arms trading or terrorism?
Have a nice day :-)
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
elmer_...@hotmail.com (elmer swanson) wrote:
> Does the gelatin in Lucky Charms marshmellows that (allegedly) has
> pork product have anything more to do with Islam than abortion or arms
> trading or terrorism or whatever?
Muslims, like Jews, follow God's commandment to Moses that pork is
forbidden as food. No observant Muslim or Jew knowingly eats food that
contains any part of swine: flesh, blood or fat. The question of gelatin
in modern, factory-produced foods is controversial. The gelatin is not
directly from the pig. It is the result of the chemical-industrial
tranformation of slaughter-house "left-overs", in this case collagen
derived from pork skins. Some Muslim jurists argue that since the origin
of the gelatin is pork then the gelatin is subject to the same rule as
pork. Other jurists argue that the transformation of the original
substance has removed its "porkness" and that the gelatin is a new
substance that is not pork and therefore can be consumed. The decision
to eat or not eat products containing pork-derived gelatin is a matter
of conscience for believers since there is no concensus among the
scholars.
As far as the marshmallows in Lucky Charms cereal are concerned, I do
not know whether they contain pork-derived gelatin or not. However, in
the 1991 edition of _A Comprehensive List of Halal Food Products in U.S.
Supermarkets_, Lucky Charms cereal was list as in the NOT halal column,
meaning that either it contained forbidden substances or that no
confirmation of indgredients could be obtained from the manufacturer.
By the way, the Qur'an contains an exception for necessity. If you are
in danger of dying from thirst, for example, you can drink wine.
Similarly if no other food is available and you are in danger of dying,
you can eat pork.
As for abortion, arms trading and terrorism, they are three other
subjects on which Islam has rules of behaviour.
Many (if not most) modern Muslims believe abortion is not permitted in
any circumstance except to save the mother's life. However, the actual
teaching of the scholars is less restrictive. Abortion is always to be
discouraged and should be avoided. Nevertheless, it is tolerated during
the period following conception until "quickening" (to use a word once
used by Christians in the same context) or "ensoulment", that is, until
the embryo is a true, soul-bearing human being. Like the early
Christians, the traditional Muslim doctrine is that quickening occurs
around the 4th month. Thus, while discouraged, abortion is tolerated
during the first trimester of pregnancy.If the Christian church had
maintained that distinction, we would certainly have much less social
and legal turmoil over the issue of abortion. In practical terms,
abortion is not much of a problem in Muslim countries since sex outside
marriage is rare and most married couples desire to have several
children.
Whether arms trading is legal or not depends on the circumstances.
Manufacturing and selling arms in and of itself is not a religiously
proscribed activity. Such trading would be wrong in some circumstances
where the buyer is already involved in an armed conflict or where the
arms are contrary to Islamic laws of war, such as weapons of mass
destruction or weapons designed to harm civilians. Under the teaching
that only God can use fire as a punishment, some would condemn the
manufacture or trading of things like napalm, mortar and rocket shells,
incendiary bombs, etc.
In spite of the actions of a small minority of Muslims, it is clear from
the Qur'an and the teachings and behaviour of the Prophet Muhammad that
terrorism is prohibited. It is contrary to Islamic rules of war to
target non-combattants or to wantonly destroy property. While those who
fight in a just war must be prepared to die, those who seek death by
engaging in suicide attacts are condemned.
--
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:a6ero9$h9s$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> thebi...@hotmail.com (thebit) wrote in message
news:<a6b03a$nsq$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> > "Brian Soothill" <jsoo...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<a69ihe$fas$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
<snip>
> Isn't the point Soothill is trying to make that Islamists are getting
> bogged down in minutia of doctrine when there are much greater evils
> in the world that need tending to?
> I mean if there is gelatin from pork in Lucky Charms marshmellow
> (rather than Nader Hussain working for Lucky Charm's competition) how
> much hard is it actually doing compared to arms trading or terrorism?
"Minutia of doctrine" is a problem, and we see too much bickering over it.
But the command not to eat pork is not some obscure interpretation of some
contested hadeeth. It is a command from our Creator *very* clearly spelled
out in scripture.
I do not, at the moment, have any power to stop terrorism or arms trading
here and now, today. I *do* have the freedom to choose to live according to
the way of life as shown to us in the Qur'an.
These are choice I can and will make here and now, today.
elmer swanson
OK, agreed that the prohibition against pork is unambiguous to any and
every observant Muslim. But is there a question of priorities?
For example, forget about arms trading and consider charity.
What would you say to the argument that everyone should eschew pork
chops and bacon and eat halal as much as possible,
BUT given a choice between spending your time on charity (say,
teaching a poor person to read)
and investigating the possibility of and campaigning against trace
amounts of pork in breakfast cereal (or another example: trace amounts
of alcohol in soft drink syrup),
it is better to do the charity work.
In other words, even though not eating pork is a very important part
of Islamic identity and charity (while one of the five pillars) is
something all sorts of kafir engage in, zakat is "Islamically" a
higher priority.
I guess this raises a broader question, namley how do you access
priorities (such as the ones described above) Islamically?
Peace
G. Waleed Kavalec
> BUT given a choice between spending your time on charity (say,
> teaching a poor person to read)
> and investigating the possibility of and campaigning against trace
> amounts of pork in breakfast cereal (or another example: trace amounts
> of alcohol in soft drink syrup),
> it is better to do the charity work.
> In other words, even though not eating pork is a very important part
> of Islamic identity and charity (while one of the five pillars) is
> something all sorts of kafir engage in, zakat is "Islamically" a
> higher priority.
>
> I guess this raises a broader question, namley how do you access
> priorities (such as the ones described above) Islamically?
>
That's a tough one. I don't feel qualified to answer. Yet ;-)
I do believe it is important to keep food manufacturers like General Mills
aware of the the Muslim and kosher market. This kind of news does just that.
I also realize that different individuals will have different reactions to
realizing a cereal they liked contains pork products. Ranging from "oh
darn" to zealous anger.
Me, if I get a hamburger mistakenly prepared with bacon strips I take them
off, I *don't* throw the whole hamburger away. Wasting Allah's bounty is
sinful too. My point? Minor contamination is one thing, deliberate and
deceitful use of haram ingredients is another.
We are repeatedly enjoined to use our common sense and reason. That
includes gathering knowledge.
Any Mouse
> The nuts in Waco called themselves Christian. Were they?
Of course they were. Moderate Christians and Muslims are
very quick to distance themselves from radical brethren who
embarrass them. In their speed to do so, they often overlook
three facts, that are true of both religions.
(1) Both the Bible and the Quran admit a large range of
interpretation. Kavalec puts this to good use, applying his
"reason and common sense." Alas, others apply their reason
and zealotry. (2) Both of these religions purposely draw a
distinction between the secular world and the spiritual
world. Christians are in this world, not of this world.
Muslims separate themselves by practice and theory from the
"kuffir." Christians view themselves as in the body of
Christ. Muslims in the ummah. Both are certain that whatever
loss this separation incurs in *this* world is compensated
in the next. In this context, what does "common sense" mean?
If it is something common to both the religious and the
secular world, then is it really what the religion demands
of its adherents? And if it is distinctive to the religion,
then it might seem radical and dangerous from a secular
viewpoint. (3) The radicals are following the recommended
path to reach valid interpretation. They read scripture,
they pray, they ask for God's or Allah's guidance, they
listen to fellow believers, trying to discern who is in the
right path and who not, and then they decide the path to
follow.
Rather than disowning your brethren, perhaps it would be
better to ask why Allah does not give them better guidance.
Or to show them the errors of their way, using the sources
your religion gives, in a way that is clear and
uncontrovertible.
And if, after a few centuries, the religion keeps fragmenting
into more and more sects, each stranger than the one before,
is it really the fault of those who sincerely believe and
pray and do what (they think) the religion directs? Or maybe,
just maybe, is it time to ask what is in the religion that
makes it so easy for people to go astray?
Paul Davis
news:a6uc86$m66$1...@samba.rahul.net...
"G. Waleed Kavalec" <kav...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<a6dte6$bq8$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> The nuts in Waco called themselves Christian. Were they?
>Of course they were.
Of course they were NOT.
Christians believe that Jesus (pbuh) is God. David Koresh that HE, was
Christ This type of a claim is not tolerated within the Christian religion
by ANY type of Christians that I know about. It is beyond the scope of
teachings that are historically recognized by nearly all Christians as being
Christian.
Koresh was promoting a religion that is as distinctly differant from
Christianity, as Islam is a distinctly different religion than Christianity.
thebit
> Moderate Christians and Muslims are
> very quick to distance themselves from radical brethren who
> embarrass them.
Please define "moderate". I will always distance myself from someone who calls for a mass slaughter
of people, when there is zero justification from the Scripture they claim to follow. Yet, I do not
think that any part of Religion, if practiced properly, is wrong. Like anything, Religion can be
abused in the wrong hands.
> (1) Both the Bible and the Quran admit a large range of
> interpretation.
But the interpretations ought to be intelligent. Are "interpretations" which lead to a crippled and
backward society correct? People interpret different thinigs (not just Religious Scriputre) in many
different ways and often can be wrong. It is not unique to Religion: it is part of human nature.
> Kavalec puts this to good use, applying his
> "reason and common sense." Alas, others apply their reason
> and zealotry.
Some apply "zealotry" in the name of other ideals: democracy, freedom, human rights, equality etc.
This is again not unique to Religion.
> Both are certain that whatever
> loss this separation incurs in *this* world is compensated
> in the next. In this context, what does "common sense" mean?
The only certainty is that God is Merciful and Just. Justice will be done, and those who are due the
Mercy of God shall receive it. "Common sense" is an in-built feature of man. It is there because we
have the Spirit of God in us. It ought to lead us to the Straight Path. But often we substitute it
for other things: greed, lust, delusions, power, glory etc.
> If it is something common to both the religious and the
> secular world, then is it really what the religion demands
> of its adherents? And if it is distinctive to the religion,
> then it might seem radical and dangerous from a secular
> viewpoint.
This is overcome by knowing that we are Vicegerents of God on Earth: we have a duty and responsibilty
in this world, for which we can be held accountable in the next. If I wrong someone, I can be sure
that Justice will be served, and I will be held responsible. Sometimes, it can happen in this world:
God knows best.
> (3) The radicals are following the recommended
> path to reach valid interpretation. They read scripture,
> they pray, they ask for God's or Allah's guidance, they
> listen to fellow believers, trying to discern who is in the
> right path and who not, and then they decide the path to
> follow.
Which just shows that people can confuse their own experiences and understanding for the Truth. They
can follow delusions and deluded people. "Common sense" tells us that mass-killing is not something
which any sane person ought to carry out.
> Rather than disowning your brethren, perhaps it would be
> better to ask why Allah does not give them better guidance.
Dialogue is the way. But people can refuse to see.
> Or to show them the errors of their way, using the sources
> your religion gives, in a way that is clear and
> uncontrovertible.
Yes. I agree. The first thing Muslims ought to do is admit that God has Ultimate Knowledge, and that
we have a small amount of this; that our knowledge may be wrong. This may help towards removing some
Sectarian boundaries.
> And if, after a few centuries, the religion keeps fragmenting
> into more and more sects, each stranger than the one before,
> is it really the fault of those who sincerely believe and
> pray and do what (they think) the religion directs?
This has actually been prophesised by the Prophet (p). It is reported that he said that Muslims will
fragment into more sects than the previous people who received Revelation (the Jews and Christians).
> Or maybe,
> just maybe, is it time to ask what is in the religion that
> makes it so easy for people to go astray?
Yes. This question has been asked before and no doubt it will be asked again. but I feel, if one
looks at the sources which these people claim they follow, you cannot find justification for mass
slaughter, bigotry, etc. all things which have, unfortunately, become idiosyncrasies of "religious
people".