Critical evidence that the Qur'an did not permit the eating of the camel!by Mikhayah ben David

בשם יהוה הרחמן הרחם/بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Did the Qur'an permit Muhammad's audience to eat camel, in contradiction to the Torah as we find it not only in Muhammad's day, but centuries before from the Dead Sea Scroll copies of the Chumash? If it did, we might be surprised to find that the Qur'an makes use of the actual word for camel (الْجَمَلُ), in addition to other then-known terms for camel and she-camel, when not speaking about matters of diet (e.g. 7.40; 77.33, et al). When it speaks about slaughtering an animal, we are told that al-ibil (الْإبِلِ), a word which we can find no singular form for (why?) means "camels".

The critically-minded reader might inquire, where was this term used for camels in pre-Qur'anic references? Why does Lisan al-`Arab, Qamus, Taj al-`Arus tell us that even in contemporary parlance, the term also means "clouds"? Should we not then find a more logical meaning in Surah 88.17 that those denying al-Qiyyamah (returning/raising to life) should observe the death and recreation of the clouds pregnant with water? The following 'ayat 18-20 make it clear that the reference must be relevant to the sky, land and mountains, to which the camel would have no relevance, nor would it to the matter of life and returning to life, whereas clouds would be a perfect example of such.

We find a similar analogy in 86.11 where the "heavens" or "sky" (السما, al-samaa') is said to give rain after commenting on the return of things to life and the creation of human kind from between the back and the ribs (namely the kidneys-adrenal complex). Do we not also see in 'ayah 17 of the very same Surah that al-ibil is in fact translated and interpreted as nothing other than "clouds"?

Again, the Qur'an already uses the term jamal for camel, as we should expect. Secondly, al-ibil is an ambiguous word, of which there cannot be found in the Qur'an a differentiation between singular and plural. In later parlance we see that ibil is taken as the singular and abal as the plural, further rendering the 'ayat which are explained as meaning "camels" even more ambiguous. We know also that it means something so unrelated as "clouds." Why then is the tafsir that it means "camel" forced down our throats but to strive to find one single point of differentiation from kashrut? We might also do good to recall that Shi`ah do not eat things like hare, etc but there are fatwah-loopholes some give for shrimp, though it is generally prohibited along with whales, sharks, turtles, lobsters and crabs, etc. as well as a general prohibition on fish without scales?

With the linguistic issue apparently resolved here, we should turn to passages that have traditionally been interpreted as referring to camels. How then do we explain Surah 6.144?

وَمِنَ الْإِبِلِ اثْنَيْنِ وَمِنَ الْبَقَرِ اثْنَيْنِ ۗ قُلْ آلذَّكَرَيْنِ حَرَّمَ أَمِ الْأُنْثَيَيْنِ أَمَّا اشْتَمَلَتْ عَلَيْهِ أَرْحَامُ الْأُنْثَيَيْنِ ۖ أَمْ كُنْتُمْ شُهَدَاءَ إِذْ وَصَّاكُمُ اللَّهُ بِهَٰذَا ۚ فَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَىٰ عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا لِيُضِلَّ النَّاسَ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ

There are two approaches to this passage, from a critical perspective. First let's examine the less likely, but nevertheless, entirely plausible explanation. If al-ibil is to refer to clouds then what are the "two clouds" here? To accept the usage of "clouds" here, we must first take its use to be a poetical rendering? The 'ayah contextually makes it clear that it is referring to the revelation at Sinai when it says: "were you witnesses when Allah commanded this to you?" It is interesting to note that there were indeed two clouds: one at Sinai and one paralleling it at the Mishkan (Tabernacle). The Historical-Critical reader might speculate whether this is then an amalgamation of an oration that referenced these, with a list of eight animals of four by two. This is possible, but it is a theory which would never be acceptable to the Traditionalist, and we could not say with any documented certainty at this time whether or not this was the case. Nevertheless, and in spite of a clear definition of the word usage here, an inability to define a word does not mean that it is to be rendered "camels".

For the Historical-Critical linguist, it is essential to further point out (again) that the Qur'an was written not only without vowels, in Kufic script, but without i`jam (dots) to distinguish various letters. There is ample documentation of this in hadith literature and certainly we can find this absence of i`jam in the earliest sources of the Qur'an that we have today. A more likely explanation is that by reading الابل as الايل we now have deer, a perfectly halal and kosher animal in this list. This would seem to make much more sense than a bizarre reference to camel by a name not used in other passages to refer to the she-camels, nor to refer to the camel passing through the eye of a needle, etc; instead, a term which the Qur'an uses for clouds in passages where that is a logical fit.

It would seem that this is the most reasonable explanation. Since al-ibil is not used outside of these passages on diet to refer to camels and since cattle, sheep, goats and deer ('ayah 143 and 144 taken together) are precisely the groupings that we find discussed in Talmudic literature (Chullin 59a), this then seems certain enough and could only be rejected by a Traditionalist who is unaware of the sources on Qur'anic origins with no i`jam-dots.

What then of Surah 22.36

وَالْبُدْنَ جَعَلْنَاهَا لَكُمْ مِنْ شَعَائِرِ اللَّهِ لَكُمْ فِيهَا خَيْرٌ ۖ فَاذْكُرُوا اسْمَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهَا صَوَافَّ ۖ فَإِذَا وَجَبَتْ جُنُوبُهَا فَكُلُوا مِنْهَا وَأَطْعِمُوا الْقَانِعَ وَالْمُعْتَرَّ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ سَخَّرْنَاهَا لَكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ

Where does this 'ayah specify camels by either al-jamal or al-ibil? It says instead al-badan (الْبُدْنَ) which does not mean camel, but body. It is used for a sacrificial goat in other instances, indicating that the term had a likely secondary meaning simply of the "body of a sacrificial animal" in general. Therefore, we should ask ourselves who it is who makes these arbitrary decisions? Who decides that "camel" can be interpreted freely for passages which one imagines them to be referenced?

Again, we know from ahadith that Muhammad said to the Torah scroll itself, in the possession of the Jewish community of his day, "i believe in you and He who sent you." In that Torah, the camel is prohibited meat. We cannot then, with all of this evidence presented, and with clear Qur'anic references to al-ibil as clouds, assume that Muhammad was permitting what the Torah which he and the Qur'an said it accepted in his day, prohibited. To do so would be irrational and self-justifying.