Why is cannibalism morally wrong?

I find the way homosexuality is justified is similar to that of why incest could be justified given the right circumstances. For example

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-557600/Father-daughter-baby-30-year-separation.html

Who can really justify the above is wrong?

As I said I don't think that incest is a moral question exactly, I'm still mulling it over...I would point out however that in that article the couple's first child died of congenital defects, something that is substantially increased in close familial incestuous couples. This would add some credence to those using medical grounds to justify their stance.

I do not see the connection to homosexuality however.
 
A: we don't know exactly why the baby died. Could well be from a variety of normal reasons. B: if the proper precautions were taken we wouldn't have this issue. As mentioned earlier the taboo surrounding the matter may have hindered proper medical care and preventative measures. Just jumping to conclusions as it stands.

Well the same answers given to people who say homosexuality is wrong can be used to justify why incest isn't wrong.
 
Last edited:
Incorrect, in Islam it is believed the body feels everything after death and it is recommended to handle the body with care. Autopsies are a major issue because of this fact. I would assume other Abrahamic faiths share a similar view regarding the dead, so on a whole simply incorrect.

you've answered your initial question then. in the societies you've mentioned, outside of saying cannibalism is wrong 'because god said so'utilitarianism would also say it is wrong. so there are ethical systems that can be appealed to which would answer in this way.
 
Maybe, we believe god provided animals and certain animals on this planet for consumption. That didnt include humans.

Plus i dont know who that guy is or how it reflects on people who are not followers of islam. But the above of being provided certain animals is point enough.

The guy is a Bone Fide Scholar of your faith, his opinion carries substantial weight on Islamic matters.


The reason it reflects on those not of your faith is in the innate faculty of Human Nature.

And let's not forget that the Qu'ran does allow you eat that which is forbidden when forced to by neccessity (Dhuroora), so something like the Andes Survivors could be justified under Islamic Law.

http://quranexplained.wordpress.com/tag/human-flesh/

Imam Al-Kortoby says “If one is in dire need and found a dead body of an animal, a swine, or of human, he might eat the dead animal because it as “Halal” (lawful or permissible), but not the body of a swine or a human”. There is a light prevention and a strong prevention, and these are the rules, such as one hates to have sexual relation with his sister, but can have a sexual relation with a foreigner because it is lawful for him. This is the condition for theses rules. Eating the flesh of a human is not allowed.

Yet the scholars Ahmad and Dawoud protested by saying that prophet Mohammad said, “Breaking the bones of a dead body is like breaking the bones of a live body. Imam Al-Shafie said, “One may eat the flesh of a human body. It is not allowed to kill a Muslim nor a free non-Muslim under Muslim rule (because he is useful for the society), nor a prisoner because he belongs to other Muslims. But you may kill an enemy fighter or an adulterer and eat his body”.

Dawoud slandered Al-Mozny by addressing Al-Mozny saying, “You allowed eating the flesh of the prophets”. Ibn Sharie responded also to Al-Mozny by saying, “You allowed killing the prophets and did not allow eating the flesh of the infidels”.

Ibn Al-Araby said, “The proper thing for me is not to eat human flesh unless the person makes sure that this act saves him from starving to death and Allah knows best”.

Whatever your interpretation, it would appear that the issue of Cannibalism in Islam is not as clearly defined as you might of thought...and this is why it is important to find out what and why your religion states certain things and whether there are more complex rules than the binary Right/Wrong that has been the common context so far.

As the saying goes, God knows best.

Maybe he does, however it appears that God may well be a little more accepting than you first thought.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad ur lumping us all together :) I don't know who that guy is no one respectable would have a designer beard. It's just some guy on the Internet. I'm of the belief that human meat cannot be consumed under any situation, including that of for survival. That's my belief, key word being my. And no cannot see the link between what my religion states and your personal beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Well the same answers given to people who say homosexuality is wrong can be used to justify why incest isn't wrong.

Consensual homosexuality has no innate risks associated with it, incest does this alone makes it different.

Would you say it is moral to have an intimate non-parental relationship (such as marriage, consummated or not) between an Adult and a Child?
 
I'm glad ur lumping us all together :) I don't know who that guy is no one respectable would have a designer beard. It's just some guy on the Internet.

Asides from Dr Saleem (I linked all his qualifications btw) I have also supplied judgements from Islamic Jurists such as Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi‘i and Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi, the former is considered to be the founder of Islamic Jurispudence.

The point is that not that Islam permits Cannibalism, but that you can ask the question and there is no definitive prohibition, the author of the quote made his own conclusions from what Imams have interpreted from the Qu'ran and Hadith. The main one being the following;

"He has only forbidden you: carrion, that is, the consumption of it, since this is the subject of the general address here, and similarly [the consumption of] what follows, [all of] which is what has not been slaughtered in accordance with [prescriptions of] the Law; to this the Sunnah adds [as also constituting carrion] what has been severed from a living creature. A special status is, however, accorded fish and locusts; blood, poured forth, as in [sūrat] al-An‘ām [see Q. 6:145], the flesh of swine, the meat is singled out for mention because that [part] is what people mostly seek, every other [part] being implied thereby; what has been hallowed to other than Allah, that is to say, what has been slaughtered in other than His Name (al-ihlāl is the raising of one’s voice, which they used to do when sacrificing for their gods). Yet whoever is constrained, forced by dire need to eat of the above-mentioned, not desiring, to rebel against Muslims, nor transgressing, committing aggression against them by waylaying them, no sin shall be on him, for eating it. God is Forgiving, to His friends, Merciful, to those who are obedient to Him, for He has granted them wide berth in this matter. The aggressor and the transgressor are excluded from this [dispensation], and to these two [categories] one should also add every person that sets out on a journey in disobedience, such as the fugitive or the excise collector, for whom it would be unlawful to eat any of the mentioned, unless they repent [of their disobedience]; this is the opinion of al-Shāfi‘ī".

I am sure I could (given enough time to research it fully) offer a valid counter argument showing that cannibalism is not permitted under Dhuroora and that is the point, interpretation allows a duality which undermines cannibalism being subject to an objective morality.

I'm of the belief that human meat cannot be consumed under any situation, including that of for survival. That's my belief.

So it is your personal belief, not one informed by your religion definitively?
 
Last edited:
On the subject of people just thinking what religion tells them;



And then you come out with;





Simple minde obedience to a religious text and you have the gall to just dismiss other people's thought out reservations as pointless?

:confused:

Never said my view was great, that doesnt mean the holes in yours are not apparent, which was being discussed.
 
Asides from Dr Saleem (I linked all his qualifications btw) I have also supplied judgements from Islamic Jurists such as Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi‘i and Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi, the former is considered to be the founder of Islamic Jurispudence.


So it is your personal belief, not one informed by your religion definitively?

Cas, you can post all the links to who ever you want. I told you my belief is based of my religion. Not what some guy says on the internet.
 
For example when opponents of homosexuality point out homosexuality is not normal or natural.

The typical answer you get is, homosexuality is practiced in the animal world? so is natural.

Something i found hypocritical from todays discussion with RDM was

There are very few mammals that practice cannibalism on a regular basis because of the health risks and the fact that it isn't all that good for survival of the species

He is perfectly willing to dismiss cannibalism as unnatural because as he says "isn't all that good for survival of the species" yet is willing to accept homosexuality which again isnt, just like cannibalism, isn't practiced that much because it "isn't all that good for survival of the species"

Do you see what i mean? That is what i was getting at when i said the same answers that can be used to defend homosexuality can be used for cannibalism, and i find it hyprotical if you support one and not the other (more so with incest however). There are many similar quotes and hypocrisies i could highlight from todays debate.

The same goes for some reasoning why incest is not natural etc
 
Last edited:
I'm sure you are aware?

Of course, that is why I referenced some of the sources that are authoritative in Islam. Al Shafi, Al Arabi and I am not saying the Qu'ran advocates Cannibalism, I am saying that the question has been asked many times and the answers from even the greatest of Islamic Scholars and Jurists is inconsistant. So while you can, quite rightly, use your interpretation of your religion to justify your belief (although I would have thought you would know why), there are others who justify a contradictory belief (at least as far as Dhuroora is concerned) using the same source religion.

What are your thoughts on the objective moral nature of Cannibalism given that information?
 
Of course, that is why I referenced some of the sources that are authoritative in Islam. Al Shafi, Al Arabi and I am not saying the Qu'ran advocates Cannibalism, I am saying that the question has been asked many times and the answers from even the greatest of Islamic Scholars and Jurists is inconsistant. So while you can, quite rightly, use your interpretation of your religion to justify your belief (although I would have thought you would know why), there are others who justify a contradictory belief (at least as far as Dhuroora is concerned) using the same source religion.

What are your thoughts on the objective moral nature of Cannibalism given that information?

I dont know who these scolars are, they are just people on the internet. I dont know what that text is, simply just words on the internet. Sorry for being so vague, but i could google just about anything that is forbidden in Islam and find answers claiming otherwise from any random joes.

I have told you i believe under no circumstance can you eat human meat, pigs (or any animal for that matter) yes if your starving, human meat never.

Furthermore the Quran doesnt have all the answers, simply more important matters. Much is also derived from hadith.
 
Last edited:
For example when opponents of homosexuality point out homosexuality is not normal or natural.

The typical answer you get is, homosexuality is practiced in the animal world? so is natural.

Something i found hypocritical from todays discussion with RDM was

He is perfectly willing to dismiss cannibalism as unnatural because as he says "isn't all that good for survival of the species" yet is willing to accept homosexuality which again isnt, just like cannibalism, isn't practiced that much because it "isn't all that good for survival of the species"

Do you see what i mean? That is what i was getting at when i said the same answers that can be used to defend homosexuality can be used for cannibalism, and i find it hyprotical if you support one and not the other. There are many similar quotes and hypocrisies i could highlight from todays debate.

The same goes for some reasoning why incest is not natural etc

I see what you mean, and this is why I am still unsure on the application of moral consideration in regard of incest and the ethical relativism of Cannibalism, I still think it is something that is more related to cultural and societal beliefs and taboos than being applicable to objective morality. This is what I was attempting to explain much early in the thread.

As for homosexuality, again I don't think it is a question of morality, but of custom. If the survival of the human race was impacted in any significant way then I may have a different opinion, but I do not think that homosexuality is currently comparable with either Cannibalism or Incest in regards to relative harm, either to the individual or to humanity at large.
 
I dont know who these scolars are, they are just people on the internet. I dont know what that text is, simply just words on the internet. Sorry for being so vague, but i could google just about anything that is forbidden in Islam and find answers claiming otherwise from any random joes.

I have told you i believe under no circumstance can you eat human meat, pigs (or any animal for that matter) yes if your starving, human meat never.

Furthermore the Quran doesnt have all the answers, simply not enough words. Much is also derived from hadith.

The links explain who they are, they are not random people on the Internet (they have been dead for centuries).

They are among those who formed the Islamic Schools of Jurisprudence, the Shafi'i School of Figh for example is one of four schools of Madhhab and his framework formed the basis for Sharia Law in Sunni Islam.

The point I am making s not that any given interpretation is either right or wrong, but that people hold different things to be true even when they use the same sources, this includes religion.
 
Last edited:
The links explain who they are, they are not random people on the Internet (they have been dead for centuries).

They are among those who formed the Islamic Schools of Jurisprudence, the Shafi'i School of Figh for example is one of four schools of Madhhab and his framework formed the basis for Sharia Law in Sunni Islam.

Genuinely i dont know who they are, i know and have told you what i believe though.
 
Genuinely i dont know who they are, i know and have told you what i believe though.

I understand and accept what you believe, I was pointing out however that it is not that far removed from what others have been saying when they use justifications for their beliefs.

I am surprised that you don't know some of those people were however, particularly Al Shafi'i particularly in relation to Islamic Law which you are using to inform your beliefs...I thought you were a Sunni, maybe I was mistaken.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom