Cooking Experiments!

[AHMETxRock]

God shot first.

[Edminster]

I'm voting for the crack dealer behind the grocery store.

Which grocery store? Because if it's a Piggly Wiggly or a Kroger's, you're voting for me.

Con: He's decided to eat more pork, which will lend money to an industry that I do not hope continues in the distant future.

Seriously, if the Pork industry tanks, it will consign all of the people in the Yucatan to death by starvation. Pork is to Yucatan as Potato is to Ireland.

[ruotwocone]

Seriously, if the Pork industry tanks, it will consign all of the people in the Yucatan to death by starvation. Pork is to Yucatan as Potato is to Ireland.

meh... they could live off of the nice, doughy tourist meat for at least a couple months before things got bad.

[AHMETxRock]

Do I support pork or cannibalism more? I hate choosing the lesser of two evils. No one listens to you BEFORE you're stuck making the choice, then everyone's like, oooooooh you're evil. And you don't even get respected by the real evil dudes, ya know? Cause they're all elitist. They'll be like, oh, why didn't you pick "insert greater evil". Are you trying to sabotage us? And it doesn't matter which you pick, cause someone's not gonna like you and attempt to do something evil to you.

Although, your arguement is very similar to saying the woman who ran that expensive prostitute rink would suffer in this hard economy if we prosecute.

[Edminster]

I was not aware that removing the main source of nutrition was only as bad as removing sexual contact. By that logic, I should be able to survive on just whatever herbs I can find in a harsh environment for over eight years without any noticable effect on my current physique!

I do support cannibalism, too. People meat is tasty, what can I say? Although as with anything, steer clear of nervous tissue and internal organs. Also, eating sick things is a no-no.

[AHMETxRock]

I was not aware that removing the main source of nutrition was only as bad as removing sexual contact. By that logic, I should be able to survive on just whatever herbs I can find in a harsh environment for over eight years without any noticable effect on my current physique!

Although as with anything, steer clear of nervous tissue and internal organs. Also, eating sick things is a no-no.

When you say the although part, did you mean in regards to the sex industry, or the pork industry? Because it can go either way. Don't be vague. Or be explicitly vague.

[Edminster]

I think I was explicitly vague enough for my purposes. On the other hand, my porpoises are vaguely explicit. Those are some freaky cetacians, man. Bein' all specific with their innuendo and suchlike.

[AHMETxRock]

Ed, you stand out as an intelligent individual. I really have not encountered enough of these. You scare me, and yet intrigue me.

[Sahan]

From a greenhouse gas emissions perspective, pork is relatively awesome! Compared to beef and lamb anyway. Porpoise is also fine, explicit or otherwise. I think freaky cetacians are nothing compared to freaky cephalopods, anyway.

[Edminster]

Ed, you stand out as an intelligent individual. I really have not encountered enough of these. You scare me, and yet intrigue me.

My first instinct is to claim that we are all intelligent here, but then I remembered that 'we' still technically includes such people as Tucker. So, I'll just have to say that most of the regulars are intelligent, whether they seem it or not.

By the way, what's your opinion on shrimp and prawns? At least one scholar is of the opinion that they are halal, but I have been seeing others refute this. Also, according to this, porpoises are edible, which was the main reason I looked up the dietary laws to begin with, but it contradicts the earlier link.

What's so scary about me? I mean, beyond the obvious list of general infidel behaviour despite having studied the Qur'an and being interested in Islam.

[mountainmage]

Didn't some rabbi argue giraffe was kosher? That's clearly a much more interesting topic of discussion than nasty sea-fish.

[Sahan]

Isn't halal something to do with how the meat is prepared, like some sort of punishment has to be inflicted on the preparer before the meat is eaten?

Looking at that page, it appears to be more of racial hate-based system instead .

[AHMETxRock]

This is a complicated one, one that goes deeper into religous discussions then simply stating "we are not all terrorists". I'd be glad to explain, but stretch your minds a bit, like I had to when I found out about the holy ghost. I kinda get what he is, but don't.

There are muslims, like there are christians and jews. Then there are Sunni and Shia, like there are Catholic and Protestant, or orthodox or non-orthodox (I may have the jewish term messed up). Christians have divisions, such as evangelical, episcapalian, blah blah blah you're a fool if you try to learn them all. Then there goes into contemporary, then general ones. Alot of distinctions. I personally find them not to make sense, and this is what repels alot of people from religion.

Anyways, Islam is almost like that. There are Sunni and Shia, which have a few fundemental differences in the religion. We use the same Kuran, but our scholars on both sides tend to oppose one another on some issues which seem preety big, and some small.

I need to explain something before you understand why we care. Islam believes that all religions are inspired by god and his messangers. That all over the world, at some point and time a messanger was sent to them to teach them of the ways of religion. However, satan, the prick, makes it his goal to taint the message gradually over time until the message is no longer the religion given to them. Encouraging the exaggeration which leads to god worship, loose morals in which people decide that a rule isn't applicable, or purposefully ignoring a rule due to no one wanting to enforce such a rule. Adam was the first profit (i believe the first prophetic instance was being told how to bury his son? Don't quote me as a reliable source on this one), and Mohammad was the last.

The Jews were told that someone would be sent to them, and christians believe the jews were wrong to ignore Jesus, instead believing that their message, unchanged, would be used to enlighten the world. The christians are also to be guilty of this, according to our belief, by refusing to accept anyone after Jesus as a messanger. Just like jews believed (do they believe still, today?) for a savior to appear from their ranks, and much like christians believe christ to come to them, so do muslims believe that jesus will return. I STRESS THIS: WE BELIEVE IN JESUS AS WELL, WE JUST DON'T THINK HE'S A DIETY. HE'S A HOLY PROFIT LIKE MOSES AND OTHERS BEFORE HIM.

Now you should have a grasp on our emphasis on the path you choose, correct? Satan changes the morals of the people, and eventually the real message is lost. Over many years, many religions formed. Islam was sent as the final one. In fact, the Kuran still must be written in the old form of arabic, which dictates how every letter is pronounced, as to not allow any confusion. The message is stressed. You get that point, right?

Well, some people feel that religion isn't flexible. In fact, Islam has further divisions then just sunni and shia. I don't know what the english word would be (strange, I only speak english, but I learn the terms in my language and arabic), but there are different subcategories with their own rules. This has to do with what mufti and hadith and fatwa's you follow. IN no special order, the actions of the profit mohammad, the things we are told or the things he says (like the aesope's morals), and the decisions from scholars that have spent many years learning about the reasoning behind islam, are all considered. That was just a very long sentence, wasn't it?

Anyways, we admit we have human imperfection. We understand that we can't get everythin 100% correct. The arguing of the scholars is our attempt to get as much of it right as we can, which is our goal as practicing Islam. Hanefi or hanife, I'm not sure how it's spelt in english, holds a very large percentage of muslims both sunni and shia. Some of these small groups might be primarily sunni or mostly shia, but that isn't all that significant when being put under that category.

The hanefi/hanife group does not eat the shrimp and stuff, reasoning on grounds of it's biology and how it isn't really fishlike. These are the best terms I can put it in with my current knowledge, so I know the reasoning sounds weak. Ask a scholar. Anyways, we don't allow dogs in our house, because angels do not enter a house that a dog lives in and dirties. I could still own a dog, if it stayed outside. I'd have to have better weather conditions personally, but I digress. A friend of mine tells me that egyptians are mostly non hanefi, and says that they don't allow you to own a dog, and you must wash yourself if you touch a dog. It's alot like the gun control debate. We might need a gun to protect ourself/if no one is allowed to have guns the problem will be less. The washing is due to cleanliness parameters, where certain animal spit or urine is considered worse then others. It's complicated. We also can't drink blood, and our cleanliness is considered broken when we release extremities or bleed, or do something very bad (sin).

[AHMETxRock]

Isn't halal something to do with how the meat is prepared, like some sort of punishment has to be inflicted on the preparer before the meat is eaten?

Looking at that page, it appears to be more of racial hate-based system instead .

My above post is beefy, but I explained the slight differences in some areas. IN the thing you found, the writer is familiar with which group the person he addressed his question to belongs, and mentions the persian as a point of reference on his knowledge on the persian man's belief group. Not much racism there. It's a bit of a pretense, like understanding the differences between typical german engineering and japanese. MY father's a mechanic and I know enough, so forgive me if this doesn't connect as well for you as it does for me.

Also, the meat MUST be slaughtered by a muslim the correct way. Does not matter which group does it, halal is a core principal. The hindu man said that the meat was halal. Muslim stores in muslim communities buy from muslim providers, but a hindu man selling halal meat is fine. A rolex is a rolex no matter who sells it. However, halal meat is inherently organic and in demand against non halal. A non muslim can see this to be the equivalent as brand favoritism, and could attempt to sell meat at a higher price. A person must rather be safe then sorry, so bringing this hindu man into question was relevant.

The question, who do we trust, was asking about the approach one should take in general, not toward specific people. This man obviously did not know if buying halal meat from a non muslim was okay or not, and asked not in the hopes of finding some sort of advantage through discrimination, but rather checking with one that knows more then he does on the topic to prevent himself from doing more wrong, if such a case was possibly present.

[Edminster]

Ahmet, I have never loved you more than this moment. Who here ever thought that the AHMETxRock of 350 posts ago would deliver something this eloquent and well-thought? The answer is Me. In your Face, people who doubt me!

*ahem*

So, any new food experiments?