Are Camels “Devils” Yet Eaten? A Theological & Critical Inquiry
By Dr Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute
Abstract
This article examines several hadiths and Qurʾānic/biblical texts which appear to label camels as “created from devils” (shayāṭīn), yet simultaneously affords camels products (meat, milk, sometimes even urine) that are used or consumed by Muslims. The paper raises theological, ethical, and scriptural questions: Are these contradictions or resolvable tensions? What do classical and modern scholars say? And how do these positions affect faith, practice, and interreligious dialogue, especially when compared with Judaic/Christian dietary law (e.g. Leviticus)? This is meant as a challenging debate piece.
Background: Texts & Claims
-
Hadith: “Camels’ resting-places … they were created from the devils.”
Sunan Ibn Majah 769 records that the Prophet Muhammad said:“Perform prayer in the sheep’s resting-places and do not perform prayer in the camels’ resting-places, for they were created from the devils.” (prophetmuhammad.com)
-
Camel urine / milk as medicine
Another hadith narrates that some tribes (e.g. ‘Urainah / Ukl) found the climate of Medina unfit for them; the Prophet allowed them to drink camel milk and urine as a medicine, and they recovered. Scholars differ about whether this makes camel urine “najis” (ritually impure), and whether medical use is allowed. (Pejabat Mufti Wilayah Persekutuan) -
Camel meat is considered halal
The general position in Islamic jurisprudence is that camels are lawful (halāl) to eat, since they are among the Anʿām (cattle/grazing animals) that are non-predatory and have flowing blood. (IslamQA) -
Biblical law forbidding camels’ consumption
In Leviticus 11:3-8 and Deuteronomy 14:7-8, the Hebrew Bible states that animals which chew the cud but do not have divided (split) hooves (e.g. camels, rabbits, rock badgers) are ritually unclean and forbidden to be eaten. (YouVersion | The Bible App | Bible.com)
Key Tensions & Questions
The following are points of tension or apparent contradiction, leading to critical questions:
| Tension | Observations | Questions / Challenges |
|---|---|---|
| Labeling camels as “created from devils” vs. using them for food | If camels are “from devils” in some sense, what does that mean? Is it literal (they are progeny of devils), metaphorical, linguistic/poetic, or functional (because they behave in some “evil” way)? Yet camels’ meat, milk, riding, etc., are widely accepted in Islam. | 1. If camels are “devils,” does that render them impure, or morally suspect? 2. If “devils” implies spiritual evil, how is it consistent that they are lawful to eat? 3. Could eating camels imply eating something tainted by “devil” essence? 4. Do scholars interpret “created from devils” strictly, or as a metaphor for stubbornness, mischief, or disruptive behavior? 5. Does this hadith override or conflict with Qurʾānic verses that praise camels (e.g. as signs, for transport)? |
| Camel urine, a “medicine,” vs purity / ritual law | The hadith permitting camel urine as medicine is taken by some scholars as an exceptional measure in an emergency context. Meanwhile, many scholars consider animal urine “najis,” especially under certain schools. There is also modern scientific research on potential antibacterial etc. effects, but with caveats. (E-JOURNAL) | 1. If camel urine is impure in most cases, how can it be medicinally prescribed? 2. Was this allowance meant as general, or as specific to time/place/emergency? 3. If modern camels eat different diets and are in polluted environment, is the same ruling still valid? 4. Is there proof (beyond hadith) that the cure was effective, or is this taken on faith? 5. How do Muslims reconcile concerns of purity with use of something considered impure for treatment? |
| Biblical law vs Islamic law re camels | The Hebrew Bible forbids eating camels on ritual purity grounds; Islam explicitly permits camel meat. This creates a strong point of difference in interreligious theological debates. | 1. If some faiths classify camels as unclean, why did Islam allow them? 2. Did Muhammad reject or reinterpret biblical purity laws, or does Islam claim independent revelation that changed the rules? 3. Do Jewish and Christian prohibitions still carry moral weight, or are they superseded according to Muslim belief? 4. How do Muslims dialogue with Jews/Christians when the same creature is called forbidden in one faith but lawful in another? |
Scholarly Interpretations & Responses
To avoid caricature, here are how Islamic scholars have responded to those tensions:
-
The fatwa on IslamWeb regarding the hadith “camels created from devils” clarifies that this does not mean camels are literally offspring of devils (jinn), but that the expression refers to their nature or behavior — e.g. camels may behave in ways that disturb prayer when they run away, or cause issues in places they rest. (islamweb.org)
-
On drinking camel urine: it is generally treated as an exceptional case for medical necessity; many scholars assert that while the hadith is authentic, it does not establish a general rule that camel urine is pure or to be regularly consumed. (Pejabat Mufti Wilayah Persekutuan)
-
On meat: there is consensus among Sunni schools that camel meat is halal. As long as the animal is slaughtered according to Islamic law, it is lawful. The fact that some animals are labelled “filed under Anʿām” (grazing beasts) in Qurʾān supports that camels are part of the lawful category. (IslamQA)
Additional Critical Questions for Debate
Below are further questions that push at the contradictions more deeply, suitable for scholars, theologians, and students to consider.
-
Semantic vs Literal Meaning: When a text says camels were “created from devils,” is this a metaphor? If so, what criteria do scholars use to determine metaphorical language in hadiths? If literal, then how does that square with other hadiths or Qurʾān that treat camels positively?
-
Authority and Interpretation: Who determines whether a hadith’s phrase is literal, metaphorical, or hyperbolic? How much weight do linguistic, contextual, cultural, historical, and medical knowledge play in interpreting these hadiths today?
-
Medical vs Religious Norms: When a hadith prescribes a remedy (milk + urine), is that command religious or medical? What are the implications if science now shows risks, or if environmental changes make the remedy dangerous? Can religious law adapt?
-
Purity and Ritual Impurity: If something labeled “from devils” might be considered spiritually impure, does that influence ritual law (e.g. wudu, prayer, handling, etc.) regarding camel meat, urine, or their resting places?
-
Moral and Ethical Implications: What are the ethical implications of eating animals associated with “evil” in scripture? Does this morally stain the consumer? How is this justified in Islamic theology?
-
Interreligious Dialogue: How do Muslims respond when interlocutors point to biblical injunctions forbidding camels, to challenge the legitimacy of Islamic law? Is there a theological account of divine revelation supersession, continuity, or divergence?
-
Consistency and Coherence: Islamic law makes various judgments: camels are lawful, meat is permissible, milk is beneficial, yet some hadiths caution against certain conditions (resting places, urine, etc.). Do all these form a coherent system, or are there internal contradictions?
-
Contextualization & Time-Boundness: To what extent were these hadiths shaped by the environment (7th-century Arabia) and cultural practices? Could some rulings or sayings have been more applicable then than now? If so, what happens when contexts change (public health, environment, veterinary science, etc.)?
-
Reliability and Grading of Texts: How strong are the chains of narration for the relevant hadiths? Do weak or less-accepted hadiths contribute to misunderstandings? For example, is there disagreement among scholars about the strength of the hadith that camels are from devils?
-
Practical Outcomes for Believers: Given these tensions, how are ordinary Muslims supposed to behave? Should they avoid praying in camel resting places? Should they eat camel meat as usual? Should they avoid camel urine even when it was traditionally used? How much of this is theological vs legal vs cultural?
Conclusion
The texts concerning camels in Islamic tradition present challenging tensions: on the one hand, sayings that seem to cast camels in a negative light (“from devils”); on the other hand, camels are lawful animals whose products (meat, milk) are used, and in some cases urine has been permitted in medical contexts.
These contradictions are not necessarily fatal; many theological systems allow for metaphor, specificity, exception, and context. But they raise serious questions:
-
Are some hadiths being misunderstood or taken out of context?
-
Are certain practices (eating camel, using camel urine) justified on grounds of necessity, revelation, or medical benefit, even if they clash with intuitive notions of purity?
-
How do Muslims reconcile these texts with their faith in the consistency and moral coherence of their scripture?
This piece is offered not as an attack but as a call for rigorous scholarly debate. For honest dialogue, clarity of interpretation, transparency about levels of authority (Qurʾān vs hadith vs juristic opinion), and sensitivity to how believers understand these texts are essential.
No comments:
Post a Comment