Food Resources and their Transformation - Food Culture and Health in Pre-Modern Islamic Societies - page 129

both to be caught alive; condemning the
eating of marrow, spleen, kidneys or the
genital organs of animals, etc.; forbidding
all fermented drinks and discouraging
the use of wine-vinegar. ākim forbids
in addition to this some plants: mulūiyya
('Jew's-mallow' ), rashād (cress or rocket),
mutawakkiliyya (a dish rather than a
plant?), and lupins, because of their name
or because they were liked by Āia,
Abū Bakr, Mutawakkil, etc. As a further
example we may mention the prohibition
among the Yazīdīs of the chicken and the
gazelle, of cauliflower and lettuce, accom-
panied by a tolerance towards the use of
alcohol. Among the Nuayrīs are found
in general at least those Muslim prohibi-
tions which are very widespread (camel,
eel, cat-fish), the prohibition of the hare,
which is strictly īī, and, among the
amsiyya , equally widespread prohibitions
such as those of crabs and shell-fish, that
of the porcupine, which is also unlawful
for the īīs, as well as the more sur-
prising prohibition of the gazelle and of
vegetables (pumpkins, gumbo, tomatoes).
The prohibition laid by this same group
upon female animals is reminiscent rather
of the practice of the Christian monks of
the East. But there were of course local
variations.
It would be useful to make a study of
the strictness with which these theoreti-
cal regulations are applied in practice in
the different Muslim countries. The laxity
or strictness of observance varies greatly
according to regions, social categories,
families, etc. The attitude even of the
same group or the same individual may
vary, according to whether it is a case of
one regulation or another. Broadly speak-
ing, for example, it seems that the pro-
hibition of pork has always been more
strictly observed than that of alcoholic
drinks. Nevertheless in China, where the
Muslims live in an area where pork is very

much liked, they not infrequently eat it,
with or without the precaution of call-
ing it “mutton”. The non-urānic pro-
hibitions are often less strictly observed,
advantage sometimes being taken of the
variations between the maāhib . Thus, at
Maān and often among the Bedouin of
Arabia, there are eaten crows and eagles,
which are forbidden by the majority of
the schools. Rich Ottomans had sent to
them by Christians (to celebrate Bayram !)
mussels, concealed under green cloth.
In the category of religious prohibitions
should be included those which the ascet-
ics imposed on themselves, and which are
nowhere prescribed by the Law. Among
these is abstinence from meat, which is
an ancient practice, probably adopted in
order to rival the zeal of Christians, Man-
icheans, etc., and which may have been
reinforced by Hindu and Buddhist influ-
ence. The dervish-orders too propagated
various prohibitions, thus provoking the
protests of the reformers.
It would be interesting to study the
way in which the fuahā , the theolo-
gians, the mystics and the philosophers
have attempted to justify the prohibi-
tions concerning food. We cannot do it
here, but would merely mention that
there has always existed a tendency to
interpret them in a rational way. Thus
al-Marinānī points out that the aim of
the prohibition is to preserve the nobil-
ity of the human body by preventing its
being sullied through absorbing the sub-
stance of base animals. This tendency has
developed particularly in modern times,
when the apologists lay especial stress on
the social advantages and the benefits to
health of the prohibition of wine. The
mystics favour rather a symbolic exegesis.
But the predominant tendency has been
to see in these regulations a sign of God's
arbitrary will. The expressions of this doc-
trine often coincide with that of certain