…and this is a 
We are often told that religion is a different way of knowing, that it can provide us with a different perspective and different information. I have not believed this at all, because no one has ever been able to give me an example of actual, useful information obtained from a religion, that could not have been generated by a reality-based approach.
Until now.
This is a question that I had never even considered before; it was unexpected and surprising. I think I've finally experienced an insightful religious question.
Are you allowed to eat a mermaid?
Apparently, the Koran or some of its promoters discussed mermaids at some point, therefore they are presumed to exist. The question is then a reasonable one: if you throw a net over the side of your dhow, and haul in a mermaid along with a nice catch of ordinary fish, is she halaal? Can you chop her up, sell her at the market, or take her home to the family for dinner?
There is a fatwa on the subject of eating mermaids that cites many scholarly Islamic sources. Here are a few.
Al-Durayr - a Maaliki scholar - said in al-Sharh al-Sagheer (2/182): Sea animals in general are permissible, whether it is dead meat or a 'dog' (shark) or a 'pig' (dolphin), and they do not need to be slaughtered properly. End quote.
Al-Saawi said in his commentary on that: The words "or a 'dog' or a 'pig' also include a 'human', referring thereby to mermaids. End quote.
Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said, after stating that it is more likely that it is permissible to eat crocodiles and sea snakes: The correct view is that nothing is excluded from that, and that all the sea creatures which can only live in water are halaal, alive or dead, because of the general meaning of the verse - i.e., "Lawful to you is (the pursuit of) water game and its use for food" [al-Maa'idah 5:64].
Well.
That was a revelation. I'll never be able to watch Splash with the same eyes again.
Now I just need recipes. I've gutted enough salmon that I probably don't need cleaning instructions.
Oh, and a mermaid. I wonder if the Asian market in the Twin Cities would have any?
(via Salty Current)
Comments
Posted by: triam | July 31, 2009 12:26 PM
But do you still have to string the mermaid upside down and slit her throat from ear to ear, so that all the blood drains out and she is really halal to eat?
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 31, 2009 12:29 PM
Read the fatwa! It specifically says they do not need to be slaughtered in that special way.
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 12:33 PM
"Get in the fooking sack!!"
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 31, 2009 12:39 PM
Nice find SC, OM!
Posted by: Draken | July 31, 2009 12:40 PM
STAY OUT OF THE WAY OF OUR LITTLE MERMAID YOU BARBARIC DOGEATING HORDES!
/lives in Copenhagen
Posted by: Formosus | July 31, 2009 12:40 PM
Ah, but how many mermaids can you have as wives? And how old do they have to be before you can marry them?
Posted by: cervantes
|
July 31, 2009 12:41 PM
You are forgetting the many important questions discussed by Thomas Aquinas, among them, "whether an angel moving from A to B passes through the points in between, and whether one could distinguish "morning" and "evening" knowledge in angels. (He was referring to an abstruse concept having to do with the dawn and twilight of creation.) Finally, he inquired whether several angels could be in the same place at once." So this mermaid question is scarcely unique among the many important instances of religious knowledge.
Posted by: Sili
|
July 31, 2009 12:41 PM
But is it even physiologically possible to eat out a mermaid?
What's that? Oh ...
Nevermiiiiind.
Posted by: RickK | July 31, 2009 12:41 PM
Funny, when I picture a young Daryl Hannah on my dinner plate, I picture her still in one piece.
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 12:42 PM
Waiting for a "breast or thigh" joke...
Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 31, 2009 12:42 PM
PZ, allow me to quote "Even Bigger Black Guy" from Trading Places:
...a stone groove, my man! You are the most righteous...
Posted by: Draken | July 31, 2009 12:44 PM
Hmmm,
(dog | pig) ⊂ human
I knew there were hidden zoomathematical treasures in these old writings.
Posted by: formosus | July 31, 2009 12:44 PM
@#7 - Did he ever figure out how many angels could dance on the head of a pin? Perhaps the Koranic scholars can discover how many jinns can dance on the head of a pin.
Posted by: DGKnipfer | July 31, 2009 12:48 PM
Thanks PZ. Now I'm going to have a headache all day. Let’s discuss this further at the Museum next Friday.
Posted by: Moggie | July 31, 2009 12:49 PM
RTFF!
Everything sounds more authoritative if you call it a fatwa. From now on, I think that's how I'll label my software documentation: perhaps this will make people actually read it.
Posted by: Berner | July 31, 2009 12:50 PM
No need to discuss anything like condemning the violence perpetuated in the name of Islam or the subjugation of women in Muslim society when there is mermaids to be talked about.
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 12:54 PM
I guess the Mermen didn't evolve with the species or are there Zagros mountain oysters of the (imaginary)sea mammal variety?
Posted by: henny jimmiraybob | July 31, 2009 12:54 PM
Yeah, but what about dinner and a few drinks first? /snareslap
Thank you. I'll be here all week. Tip your waitresses/waiters and do try the veal.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 31, 2009 12:54 PM
♪ You wanna cook da girl ♪
♪ Sha-la-la-la-la-la my,oh my ♪
Posted by: Pentimento | July 31, 2009 12:55 PM
Does mermaid poontang smell like human?
Posted by: Jim Bob Cooter | July 31, 2009 12:55 PM
I appreciate the branching out into mocking one of the other major religions. The focus around here seems to be christianity and associated woo. It's good to remember that christianity does not have a monopoly on being batshit insane.
Posted by: Ramel | July 31, 2009 12:56 PM
Wow Islam-qa is a goldmine of truly bizzar superstitions including:
Sitting partly in shade and partly in sunlight is forbidden, this is where shatan lurks.
If you see a non-mahram woman, and this has an effect on you go home and have intercourse with your wife to remove the effect.
And on the subju=ect of marrage:
It is forbidden to remain celibate and never marry; to be castrated; to marry two sisters at the same time; to marry a woman and her paternal aunt or maternal aunt at the same time – regardless of which is married first – for fear of breaking the ties of kinship; for a man to marry his father’s wife.
And my personal favourite:
It is forbidden to make deals in marriage, such as saying, “Marry your daughter or sister to me and I will give you my daughter or sister in marriage”, because this exchange is wrongful oppression and is haraam.
Posted by: Pentimento | July 31, 2009 12:56 PM
Does mermaid poontang smell like human?
Posted by: Didac | July 31, 2009 12:57 PM
It's very funny, indeed. One of the best things it is to compare nowadays quotations of Koran or fatwas with 1930s quotations of Talmud. Quotations are funny. We hope the results of 1930s quotations of Talmud will be not fully reproduced in this new set of quotations.
Posted by: SC, OM, Blogfeministress | July 31, 2009 12:59 PM
Where are these cinderblocks coming from? If you go to my post (please do, by the way), you'll note that I found this site in the process of collecting information about Lubna Hussein. I've posted links to organizations involved in supporting her in her cause on the thread here about her, and "Abu Faris" at progressiveislam.org and his commenters have been providing information about the case.
Mocking posts like this are part of the larger effort to put on display the utter absurdity of religious doctrine, which is an important action in countering its malicious societal influence.
In short, your misplaced concern is noted. Now piss off.
Posted by: tsg | July 31, 2009 1:01 PM
Did you not see this post just yesterday?
Posted by: dinkum | July 31, 2009 1:01 PM
Wouldn't that be, "Breast or fillet?"
Posted by: Nichole | July 31, 2009 1:02 PM
Found these looking for that Maakies strip where they're eating the mermaid, which I can't find but is awesome.
http://tinyurl.com/mj7u7w
http://tinyurl.com/mymxx8
Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 31, 2009 1:03 PM
http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/penny_arcade_ariel.jpg
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
July 31, 2009 1:04 PM
Eating rabbits, however, still gets you sent straight to Hell. In fact, causing any harm to rabbits, or having any bad thoughts about rabbits, will get you damned. Tickling rabbits excessively will get you 20 lashes (in hexadecimal). Licking rabbits will get you the Box.
Now, squirrels? Don't get me started on those fuckers....
Posted by: SEF | July 31, 2009 1:05 PM
I'm pretty certain you already know that doesn't really qualify as useful, because of the notable absence of mermaids (and other mythical beings, including the religion's most important supernatural one). However, I'd also like to point out that it's not really useful because it only says it's permissible within the religion.
There's whole heaps of stuff in any religion which is merely talking about the religion. These are not useful in a meaningful sense because they don't apply outside the religion (eg in another religion, let alone to atheists), even if some of the objects involved are at least real rather than imaginary!
Meanwhile, it doesn't tell you reliably whether or not the mermaid is good eating rather than poisonous or disease-carrying (eg as with kuru). Only empiricism, ie the reality-based approach, will convey that information. Tastes like chicken / fish? First, catch your mermaid ...
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | July 31, 2009 1:06 PM
Moggie @ #16,
Yes, I'm definitely adding (along with "Get in the feckin' sack!") "Read the fatwa!" to my lexicon.
Posted by: Newfie | July 31, 2009 1:07 PM
Roll in flour, salt and pepper and fry in rendered salt pork fat in a cast iron skillet... the only way to cook fish.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
July 31, 2009 1:09 PM
This conflicts with what I learned about mermaids from Don Martin, specifically that it's okay to eat the fish end, but you have to throw the rest back.
Posted by: Jing-reed | July 31, 2009 1:09 PM
Anything in the Koran about eating 'roadkill'?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6E0b7DGwtI&feature=related
Posted by: T_U_T | July 31, 2009 1:11 PM
(un)holy shit.
So they allow eating fictional sentient creatures.
I think that settled it. Islam is definitely evil religion.
Posted by: Rev bigdumbchimp | July 31, 2009 1:14 PM
RTFF
Brilliant
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | July 31, 2009 1:17 PM
[shamelessly trying to start a flame war to bring attention to the thread]
"Gonzo Gastronomy: How the Food Industry Has Made Bacon a Weapon of Mass Destruction"
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/141498/
[/sttsafwtbattt]
Posted by: Rev bigdumbchimp | July 31, 2009 1:22 PM
Those bastards
Posted by: skyotter | July 31, 2009 1:27 PM
great, now i'm craving sushi. maybe i'll get a spicy mermaid roll for lunch
Posted by: xebecs | July 31, 2009 1:28 PM
Now if I can just get some advice on the permissibility of playing chess with rocs, engaging in public debate with ghosts, and braiding the hair of harpies!
This could be the big breakthrough that leads to the Singularity!
Posted by: MrFire | July 31, 2009 1:31 PM
First Nessie, now mermaids. These things come in threes...
Posted by: Die Anyway | July 31, 2009 1:33 PM
WTF. Muslim fishermen are wondering if they catch a mermaid can they kill and eat it? Are they effing serious? Getting beyond the ethics of actually keeping it, I'd be wondering how many millions of dollars I could sell it for. Oh yeah, and the fact that anyone even thought it was a reasonable question to ask the imam to begin with. Next up... can we eat the aliens when their flying saucer crashes?
Damn. That is just so sad.
Posted by: MrFire | July 31, 2009 1:34 PM
Oh what the bloody hell. Fixed link, even if it was just two threads ago.
Posted by: Sili
|
July 31, 2009 1:36 PM
Don't mock roadkill! I have a very nice leg in the freezer.
(The rest of the baby was too squashed to pick up.)
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 31, 2009 1:42 PM
And for number 3 I introduce my Boq friend here. Mr. Sasquatch, do you consider eating mermaid OK? What? Only the liver?
Posted by: Taz | July 31, 2009 1:45 PM
It's not far below the way they treat most women.
Posted by: TL | July 31, 2009 1:46 PM
Is this an exercise in determining how many pinheads can dance on an angel?
Posted by: About Three-Fitty | July 31, 2009 1:50 PM
The Roman Catholic Death Cult holds that the capybara is a fish, suitable for eating on Friday.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 31, 2009 1:53 PM
Roland Martin has a different outlook. It would look great stuffed and mounted on the wall behind my desk!
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 31, 2009 1:55 PM
Geeze!!! Can't you respect other people's beliefs!?!? I mean, so WHAT if nobody's ever SEEN a mermaid!! It's still important that religions have moral teachings regarding them. Atheists, with no fatwas to fall back on, would not KNOW if it was OK to eat mermaid or not!!! HOW WOULD AN ATHEIST KNOW?? I suppose you RATIONALISTS would ASK THE MERMAID or something???1!!!
Posted by: Bob L | July 31, 2009 1:56 PM
# 43 @ "Next up... can we eat the aliens when their flying saucer crashes?"
Easy question to answer; can you ethically eat squid or not? Logically any superior species with inter-planetary space travel is going to be cephalopod based.
Posted by: Beth B. | July 31, 2009 2:02 PM
@ Die Anyway (#43):
"Oh yeah, and the fact that anyone even thought it was a reasonable question to ask the imam to begin with."
Am I the only one imagining this question to have come from a closeted atheist looking for entertainment? It would be like asking Ken Ham to speculate on the sorts of saddles used by Adam and Eve to ride their dinosaurs.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 31, 2009 2:02 PM
I think I see a unicorn in my yard. Is it OK to drop it with my hunting rifle, or can I just offer it a virgin and club it with a tire iron when it gets close?
Joking aside - I heard a pretty funny thing on NPR the other day about there being too many imams issuing contradictory fatwas. This, apparently, is causing a bit of a fatwa coherence problem because you can just shop around and pick the fatwa that fits what you want the best.
Fatwas could be taken as proof that the faithful either don't really believe in god or don't really sense god's will. After all, if you "knew" god, you wouldn't need an imam to tell you what you needed. Or, if you believed in god and thought you knew its will, you'd never dream of going contrary to it. (Other than money, lust, and power, that question was at the core of the protestant schism in christianity. If the muslims keep going with the "everyone sing his own kyrie elesion" model they'll wind up having to deal with it in a couple decades)
Posted by: Beth B. | July 31, 2009 2:04 PM
Further to #53: Except that he took you seriously.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 31, 2009 2:05 PM
Die Anyway ponders:
can we eat the aliens when their flying saucer crashes?
They taste like chicken. I know a guy who knows a guy whose cousin worked for a government agency that nobody knows about (don't ask how I know) and he said that the aliens taste just like chicken. I can't imagine someone would make up something like that so it must be true.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 31, 2009 2:06 PM
And we can only guess what Rowan and Martin might have thought.
Sock it to me!
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 2:09 PM
Sea animals in general are permissible, whether it is dead meat or a 'dog' (shark) or a 'pig' (dolphin), and they do not need to be slaughtered properly...
Al-Saawi said in his commentary on that: The words "or a 'dog' or a 'pig' also include a 'human', referring thereby to mermaids.
I'm still trying to work out the function that maps dogs onto sharks, pigs onto dolphins, and humans onto mermaids. (Come to think of it, I can see why English calls catfish "catfish", but why are dogfish "dogfish"?)
Posted by: Jim | July 31, 2009 2:09 PM
[Insert dirty joke involving "eat" and "tastes like fish" here.]
Posted by: tsg | July 31, 2009 2:12 PM
They really come in thirteens, you just have to wait longer.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 31, 2009 2:13 PM
Dunno... but they brew some very nice beers.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 31, 2009 2:16 PM
Beth B writes:
It would be like asking Ken Ham to speculate on the sorts of saddles used by Adam and Eve to ride their dinosaurs.
There's gonna be a bunch of atheists at the museum, soon. Maybe they could find out for you.
(Since dressage-style saddles weren't invented until pretty recently, it would have been more likely to be a wooden-treed McLellan style, like a hussar's saddle, especially if the dino in question had a bit of a ridge down its back. It's a good thing the dinos were friendly before the fall, because I'd really hate to have to be the guy to run a girth around T.Rex's belly. If one of those suckers spooked, it'd be pretty exciting, for sure.)
Posted by: Ariel | July 31, 2009 2:16 PM
Ariel is my real name. I feel like I should duck and cover.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 31, 2009 2:18 PM
yes they do, yes they do.
Unfortunately I can't get them in SC. I have to drive to NC or GA.
grumble.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 2:20 PM
Bill@61,
Sorry, you lost me. Culturally specific joke?
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 2:20 PM
I've always wondered about grouping names such as a parliament of owls, a whiteness of swans, etc. Since unicorns seem to be the preoccupation of adolescent girls, would it be a penetration of unicorns? A disappointment of mermaids?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 31, 2009 2:21 PM
Knockgoats:
Yes.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 31, 2009 2:23 PM
Die Anyway ponders:
can we eat the aliens when their flying saucer crashes?
No, no, no. When the superior cephalopod race graces earth with their presence they are going to eat US. Obviously, the favoured get eaten first. Unless they are accidentally vaporised by death rays.
Posted by: Eetto | July 31, 2009 2:34 PM
Question: anyone know what this thing is? or is it fake?
http://www.fark.ru/media/video/prikols6/i1645
Although apparently they did eat it so I hope they checked the Koran . .
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 2:35 PM
Evidently the imposter PZ comment got removed from this thread. Comment # 20 needs to be excised too. There's pushing the envelope with candor and then there's just utter irredeemable crassness.
Posted by: Kraid | July 31, 2009 2:38 PM
Mermaids: Not enough woman to love, too much fish to eat.
Posted by: alex | July 31, 2009 2:38 PM
omg i gotta admit, ive always had a soft spot for islam. i think its because i felt as though muslims were misunderstood. then i read that website, and read some of the restrictions they have, and i was absolutely horrified. muslim women arent even allowed to make eye contact or smile at a non muslim person. u cant have sex. that causes sexual tension, but u arent even allowed to jerk off to make it easier for urself. its complete mind control.
Posted by: dNorrisM | July 31, 2009 2:39 PM
Sili @8 and Nekked Bunny @34:
Quoting Steven Fry on his wedding night:
"I wish she was the kind of mermaid with the fish part on top and the girl part on the bottom."
PS: I saw the Fiji Mermaid a while back in Bridgeport- Inedible-looking.
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 2:40 PM
OMG. Why, it's the legendary Bishop fish! The Germans were right! AaiiiiiiiPosted by: Xayide | July 31, 2009 2:40 PM
If you find mermaid meat there, be prepared to pay out the wazoo for it, since it's supposed to make you immortal.Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 2:42 PM
Sven@67,
Thanks!
Posted by: Brandon P. | July 31, 2009 2:42 PM
I wonder, since mermaids are half-human, would it be half-cannibalism to eat one?
Posted by: Patrick | July 31, 2009 2:43 PM
You know a guy (who knows a guy who has a cousin) who works at Creek Mountain?
Posted by: Lotharloo | July 31, 2009 2:44 PM
You guys don't seem to take Islam seriously. These people have more than thousand years to study all imaginable situations.
From "Lipstick Jihad":
And if you are wondering, as far as I know, the answer is yes but unlike normal bastards, this one can be a judge in Islamic courts.
Posted by: Matt Heath | July 31, 2009 2:45 PM
dNorrisM @73: That was Philip J. Fry (from Futrurama). I'm pretty sure Stephen Fry would find the other way just as icky
Posted by: Kraid | July 31, 2009 2:47 PM
Also, obligatory Little Mermaid parody:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4b7o4CJDdw
and obligatory disclaimer: it's Ariel singing about wanting human genitalia, so in case you couldn't guess, it's kinda dirty and even uses some crass words.
Posted by: amphiox | July 31, 2009 2:48 PM
I am reminded of the manga "Mermaid Forest". A taste of mermaid flesh grants immortality, along with a 99.99% chance of also being turned into a monster in the process.
Posted by: Brandon P. | July 31, 2009 2:50 PM
Speaking of Islamic silliness, supposedly there's an Islamic book out there that says that dinosaurs were a type of "djinn" (aka genie).
http://maniacmuslim.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9907&view=findpost&p=586352
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 31, 2009 2:52 PM
I wonder how much those rich assholes would be willing to pay for a piece of raw mermaid?
/snicker
Posted by: cervantes
|
July 31, 2009 2:54 PM
A couple of people posted links to a video earlier but did not explain it. Here's the news story, the timing of which is too good to be true. Excerpt:
Village residents from the Rostov region of Russia caught a weird creature two weeks ago after a strong storm in the Sea of Azov. . . . The fishermen originally believed that they had caught an alien and decided to film the monster with the help of a cell phone camera. . . .However, ufologists and scientists were greatly disappointed when they found out that the fishermen had eaten the monster. . . .Chairman of the Anomalous Phenomena Service, Andrei Gorodovoi, stated that the creature, which he could see on the short video, was an anomalous being. However, it could hardly be described as an extraterrestrial form of life, he added. Gorodovoi rejected the version about mermaids too. “There are many legends about mermaids living in the Sea of Azov. Nevertheless, specialists of the Service for Anomalous Phenomena have never confirmed those fairytales."
Posted by: amphiox | July 31, 2009 2:55 PM
"Next up... can we eat the aliens when their flying saucer crashes?"
Three men (in the original version these men are assigned specific nationalities/races) are walking down a road when a spaceship descends from the heavens and an alien walks out.
The first man falls on his knees and worships the alien.
The second man pulls out his gun and shoots the alien.
The third man wonders what recipe should be used to cook the alien.
Posted by: TheVirginian | July 31, 2009 3:03 PM
Why is everyone sounding so skeptical? We know that the Bible and Koran are reliable historical and science texts. Why would so many people turn to them for history and science if they were not trustworthy?
If the Koran says mermaids once existed, then they once existed. If we don't see them anymore, it's because the Muslims overfished them and wiped out the stock. Of course, that means some day, someone on a fishing boat in the Indian Ocean will pull up a net and, voila, a mermaid, just as coelecanths were discovered after being thought extinct.
Likewise, the Bible says dragons once existed. Isaiah 27:1 and 51:9, among other passages, tell us Smaug and his brethren once roamed the Earth. Presumably advanced hunting techniques - the recurved bow - helped humans wipe them out. But maybe, just maybe, somewhere deep in Africa, there's a lost land shielded by mountains and we will find a small colony of the beasties, just as other mountain valleys discovered in recent years have turned up many new species.
It's in the Bible, so you must believe it. Just like you must believe that plants occupied the Earth before the seas had life, and birds appeared at the same time as fish, and the Moon gives off its own light, just like the Sun, and plants existed before the Sun was created.
The Bible says it, so we should just believe it! Surely the ancient goat-herders who wrote it wouldn't just make up stories about drags, mermaids, a glowing Moon, etc. Would they?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 31, 2009 3:03 PM
of course the catholics will laugh hysterically at this...
...quite possibly at the same moment they are chewing on a piece of bread they firmly believe, without question, to be the flesh of a 2000 year-old tortured nomad.
I still say the catholics win the "that's just friggin goofy" award.
Posted by: Draken | July 31, 2009 3:07 PM
For sure there's no imam here? I suddenly started wondering if mermaids should wear hijab when in the presence of haraam men.
Posted by: lydia | July 31, 2009 3:14 PM
I know you're trying to be all politically correct, but I can figure them out anyway - the first two are Americans and the third guy is French.
Posted by: Berner | July 31, 2009 3:20 PM
@ #25
I wasn't talking about PZ I was talking about these Muslim scholars wasting their time talking about Mermaids.
Posted by: co | July 31, 2009 3:25 PM
Please, lydia (#90): It's obvious that the third guy is Chinese; a Frenchman would have surrendered or run away, to taunt it a second time.
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | July 31, 2009 3:29 PM
Ah. Sorry. Quick trigger finger. But yours was a strange comment. Go to the site. The shaykh does discuss the subjugation of women - y'know, its correctness, how to do it, their inferiority,...
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | July 31, 2009 3:37 PM
I prefer Invisible Pink Unicorn steaks.
Of course they don't look much on the plate.
Posted by: Interrobang | July 31, 2009 3:39 PM
The Jews definitely have more useful dietary laws; if it weren't for hexures, I'd have to read labels all the time. Most food manufacturers here don't recognise "dairy" as an allergen... *mutter*
I don't actually think this is a waste of time. I would much rather religious lawyers were arguing about their religion's equivalent of how many nonexistent beings can dance on the head of a common household item than, say, making laws that actually cause real-world effects. Besides which, religious law is a fascinating sociological construct.
Posted by: Didac | July 31, 2009 3:53 PM
Some people here have refered to the Bishop-fish, a myth of the Northern Sea. In the Mediterranean Sea we have the Pesce Cola, that some sailors have seen in the Naples Bay. May be there is a link here, because "Cola" can be identified to Saint Nicholas, who was a bishop of Mitra (Asia Minor), whose remains were purchased by merchants from Bari and later the Barinese devotion to Saint Nicholas was transmitted all along the commercial route through Mediterranean-Atlantic-Northern-Baltic sea. I do not want to sound Euhemerist but all those myths (included mermaids) could be simply related to people expecting only fishes living in the sea and get a surprise when finding a pinnipede (seal) or a cetacean (dolphin).
Posted by: Nangleator | July 31, 2009 3:56 PM
Yes, I share Drakan's confusion, and then some.
If the mermaid is hot, the man cannot be held accountable for raping her. Except that he then committed bestiality, right? Oh, and that she must not have been wearing a burkha if he couldn't control himself, and so he should have stoned her after raping her. But what if she then carried his man-child? If he ate the mermaid pregnant with his son, should he just chew around the fetus, or is a half-human, half-mermaid fetus okay to eat?
Damn, no wonder they're staying out of sight.
Posted by: Nap | July 31, 2009 3:57 PM
@ OP: The mind boggles at the idiocy of all this.
@90: Win. Oh yes.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 31, 2009 3:59 PM
I wonder what's leaving me more flabbergasted... that they actually discussed a religious law like mermaids actually seriously exist, that the discussion in question was about eating them, or that the conclusion was that it was okay...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 31, 2009 4:00 PM
According to Jewish law, ten adult male Jews (a group called a minyan) are necessary to conduct prayer services. The question was asked "can a golem be a member of a minyan?" The answer is no.
Posted by: Nap | July 31, 2009 4:01 PM
@92: Well, you do have a point the Chinese seem to eat just about anything...
Posted by: Newfie | July 31, 2009 4:07 PM
but how many can you fit in a minivan?Posted by: Sanction | July 31, 2009 4:11 PM
I went to United Noodles, the end-all of Asian markets in the Twin Cities, and to the best of my knowledge did not find mermaid.
Of course, many items there are labeled only in Asian languages, and I didn't ask whether the market carried mermaid, so I can't say for sure.
Posted by: Didac | July 31, 2009 4:21 PM
#100. According to the Rabbi's answer all of you (PZ included) for myself, I myself for all you (PZ included), are Golems because of lacking soul in communicating through Internet. I wonder if that kind of golemization also takes place through the phone, through postal letter or through telegraph.
Posted by: Nangleator | July 31, 2009 4:22 PM
@100: Can a muslim eat a golem?
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | July 31, 2009 4:25 PM
Thanks again, PZ.
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/2009/07/thanks-pz.html
Posted by: Suzanne | July 31, 2009 4:25 PM
Didn't medieval people or early explorers or somebody think dugongs and manatees were mermaids? If so, can we eat those too, or just the half-lady/half-fish variety?
Posted by: Draken | July 31, 2009 4:26 PM
@#105, sure, but only if it's zionist.
Posted by: Patches | July 31, 2009 4:27 PM
I heard from a reliable source that eating mermaid flesh can make you immortal. Unless it doesn't, then you get turned into a monster.
Posted by: frog | July 31, 2009 4:28 PM
TisHimself #100:
That link is particularly funny -- because even if you accept the Golem, he's got the analogy upside down. A computer avatar would have a "soul", but no "body" unlike a Golem which has a "body" but no "soul".
The better analogy is whether an angel can be counted in a minyan. I'm sure it's been discussed somewhere...
If you're going to talk nonesense -- at least be consistent about it!
Posted by: dNorrisM | July 31, 2009 4:30 PM
Matt:
D'OH! I'm embarrased.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 31, 2009 4:33 PM
What trade mark or identification mark did the makers of Golems use to identify them with? If you can't tell them apart from the real thing? Just asking.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 31, 2009 4:37 PM
>>103
Look for 人魚. No, I don't know what it is in Thai.
Also, there may be euphemisms in use that I don't know of. Horse meat is cherry meat for example. There exist plenty of other examples where cherry is substituted for something else, e.g. white, red, round, etc. and special names for special kinds of meat that don't involve even the meat character and recipes which often have characters involving how something is made, but not what's in it.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 31, 2009 4:41 PM
>>105
:-)
Posted by: Didac | July 31, 2009 4:41 PM
#112. It is true. It is hard to tell a Golem from a non-Golem. As a matter of fact, however, there are distinctions. Golems do not act on behalf of themselves but on behalf of their creators. They forget their interests to defend the interest of their creators. Mmm...
Posted by: Tim | July 31, 2009 4:42 PM
I think anyone firing up the barbecue to slap some mermaid steaks on might be jumping the gun. Are we sure that mermaids are not amphibious?Posted by: amphiox | July 31, 2009 4:44 PM
#90, 92, 101:
In the version I first learned, the first guy was Indian (Hindu), but it changes.
I think of it as the three archetypal human responses to the unknown.
There was a fourth man, who wanted to speak with/study/learn from the alien. But he's dead. The other three conspired to kill him.
The first because daring to shine a rational light on the divine is blasphemy.
The second because traitorous bleeding heart liberal cowards cannot be allowed to negotiate with the enemy.
The third because his children were hungry and no tree-hugging alien-loving environmentalist was going to stop him from feeding them.
Posted by: Martin | July 31, 2009 4:48 PM
When you make a golem, you write "chai", which is Hebrew for "life", on its forehead to bring it to life. This aids in golem identification. To kill the golem, you erase the "chai."Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 31, 2009 4:51 PM
Only Little Mermaids are amphibious, I'm pretty sure... and only them for part of their life cycle.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 31, 2009 4:53 PM
Discovered Joys writes:
I prefer Invisible Pink Unicorn steaks.
Of course they don't look much on the plate.
If you garnish them with lots of minced bluefin toro, they are excellent!
(Out here in redneckistan I keep running into self-proclaimed 'cooks' who insist that venison is really really good. Most of the time it's because it's cooked with lots of bacon, or chili powder, or something like that. So a few years ago someone gave me some venison and I served it with salt/sugar-cured ham and garlic mashed potatoes. I had a few guests and it wasn't until part way through that they thought to ask "where is the venison"? "I reduced it into the gravy, then gave it to the dogs.")
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 31, 2009 5:07 PM
Tis Himself @ #100:
What does it say that upon reading this my first thought was of Evil League of Evil applicant Tur Mohel and his minyan?
Posted by: SEF | July 31, 2009 5:18 PM
The (humanoid) Cat in Red Dwarf (UK Sci-Fi prog) had his mermaid that way round and declared the human version to be the stupid way round (because he could make better use of both ends of his one).
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 31, 2009 5:19 PM
So you can't just have a minyan with your minions?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 31, 2009 5:19 PM
I for one am excited about the possibility of mermaid bacon.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 31, 2009 5:30 PM
Mermaid sushi is not for the squeamish.
While my daughter's name is Ariel, it could have been Miranda, Umbriel, or Titania, but not Oberon. Most of the geeks 'round these parts know why.
Posted by: Silverlock | July 31, 2009 5:43 PM
To E.V. @ #66:
The correct term for a group of unicorns is a blessing. I don't know about the mermaids. :)
Posted by: Snarla | July 31, 2009 6:00 PM
Nice! This gives me a fun little project for the weekend. So far I see no evidence that the Qur'an mentions mermaids, ditto for the Hadith.
Of the ten Islamic scholars mentioned here, only three or arguably four posit that mermaids exist, and the rest just say that you can eat any animal from the sea.
This site is nice enough to include the Arabic, so I'll probably have a nice post about this on my blog in a couple of days. Thanks!
Hoping to see your al-Jazeera interview soon, PZ.
Posted by: tim Rowledge | July 31, 2009 6:08 PM
Posted by: RobertDW | July 31, 2009 6:09 PM
At least they can eat a shrimp cocktail.
Posted by: John Marley
|
July 31, 2009 6:23 PM
Xayride at #75 beat me to the Rumiko Takahashi reference, but still...
Is the (very) slight possibility of immortality worth it? Most people just die horribly. Most of the rest become hideous, insane monsters.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 31, 2009 7:25 PM
Any chance it's actually about sea cows?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 31, 2009 7:26 PM
Oberon is a boy's name. Anyone who's read Roger Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber books knows that.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | July 31, 2009 7:29 PM
Huh. I wonder if they were talking about this?
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | July 31, 2009 7:31 PM
Any chance what is?
Posted by: Doug | July 31, 2009 7:31 PM
I think your blog has finally jumped the shark. Or the dog mermaid as it were. (Where's the Fonz when you need him?)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 31, 2009 7:35 PM
Last I saw, playing a retired FBI agent on Numb3rs.Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | July 31, 2009 7:38 PM
Hmmm. I see a contradiction here...
***
(Oh, and thanks also PZ for addding my link to the Molly page.)
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | July 31, 2009 7:54 PM
A fish connoisseur made paella with Mermaid;
He thought the aroma was nice.
With garnish of seaweed (his sycophants “oui-oui-ed”)
And saffron infusing the rice.
He clarified butter, and started to mutter
“It tastes like it’s really Mazola”
Then added blue cheeses: “the trick, if you please, is—
With Gorgon, you need gorgonzola!”
With minimum bluster, he gutted and trussed her;
You see, in his studies, he’d learned
That the delicate features of mermaid-like creatures,
If left unattended, get burned.
The succulent breast of (as well as the rest of)
The meal, would make proud its creator;
I was told that one bite would bring utter delight,
And I could not refuse… so I ate her.
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/07/eating-mermaid.html
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | July 31, 2009 8:06 PM
I got a Cuttlefish poem in my blog comments!
Oh, glorious, glorious day!
"blue cheeses" / "you please, is" - genius
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 31, 2009 8:13 PM
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
She chortled in her joy.
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | July 31, 2009 8:29 PM
And a link from Cuttlefish! (Thanks!)
*sings happy sitemeter song*
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
July 31, 2009 8:45 PM
They're loaded with mercury, ya know.
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 8:56 PM
OMG, you just out-Sondheimed Sondheim.Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 9:01 PM
Best Sondheim lyric ever: (Jack's{ of Jack and the beanstalk} mother referring to the cold beloved cow Jack must sell)
We've no time to sit and dither
While her withers wither with her.
Posted by: Ryogam | July 31, 2009 9:04 PM
Mermaids, what rubbish. Everyone knows they don't exist.
However, the most Holy Bible K.J.E. in Numbers 23 and 24 clearly state that unicorn exist. In fact, unicorns are so powerful that God is said in both Num. 23 and 24 to "have the strength of a unicorn." Now, clearly, if unicorns were non-existent, then the bible would be stating that God had the strength of a thing that does not exist, or no strength at all, which, of course, is not possible.
By the use of the Logical Property of Equality, we can also see that the statement "God has the Strength of a Unicorn" is equal to the statement "A Unicorn has the Strength of God." Now, the question may be asked how is it that unicorns, which have strength equal to God, seem to have completely disappeared from Earth? Surely, something with the strength of God could not be made extinct. And, would, in fact, not need to hide, given all that strength. The answer is elementary....
But I see my time is up, so I must bid you adieu.
Posted by: Anton Mates | July 31, 2009 9:16 PM
Mermaids can't possibly be halal. They're addicted to ham.
Posted by: Li'l Innocent | July 31, 2009 9:46 PM
Ryogem@#144 - that's what one gets for sticking with the King James translation. I happened to read something about this a while back - the Hebrew word that the KJ crew translated as unicorn is "rem", and some modern authorities think that "rem" actually referred to a species of large, aggressive antelope with long, straight horns that was fairly common on the ancient Mideast, and that at least one Imperial Roman author (forget which one) described as being used in the amphitheaters during mass wild beast shows, where power and willingness to fight were at a premium.
The rem/unicorn confusion arose over a long period of time in medieval Europe, and involved mistaken ideas about rhinoceroses. The Hebrew phrase likening the might of Yahweh to the fierce rem makes some sense at least.
I wonder what the Arabic word being translated as "mermaid" really describes, or described when these commentaries were written? Even in English "mermaid" or "merman" means somewhat different things in different folklore traditions. For one thing, the Quranic discussion quoted above assumes that "mermaids" can live only in the water - and that makes their mermaid idea different from the one we're familiar with right there.
Posted by: scooter | July 31, 2009 10:31 PM
I say, if they are the bully overlord types, and they want us to serve them, then we roll with the standard sci fi pun.
Posted by: muslim girl with a phd | July 31, 2009 10:41 PM
I am shocked at this post and the comments appearing here.
I like scienceblogs.com, because I learn something new every time I read something. People are educated, smart, funny and entertaining to read.
Here, I am nothing short of disgusted. PZ Myers, do you believe *everything* you read on the internet? The website you cited is known among anyone who knows anything about Islam to be a fake, Islam-slandering website. It posts outrageous questions and even more outrageous answers in order to ignite this kind of reaction by the IGNORANT public.
I would have expected more out of science blog writers and science blog readers, but it seems whether you are in Ohio or San Francisco, the racism and ignorance is there... the liberals have just learned to hide is better than the conservatives.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Or did you forget that America was founded because people wanted freedom of RELIGION????
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 31, 2009 10:45 PM
So do we, in the form of freedom from religion. Of all types, including yours. Your rant stereotypes you, in case you are interested, and just creates the impression you are intolerant. Not what you should be in a secular society.Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | July 31, 2009 10:50 PM
ranting muslim girl with a phd,
Why don't you go to the link at my blog to the story at ProgrssiveIslam and give them your evidence that the site is fake?
Posted by: lkr | July 31, 2009 10:54 PM
It puzzles me a bit that a sea "pig" = dolphin is halal, but they at least improve on phylogeny over Genesis (whale = fish). Does this anticipate understanding of cetaceans as subgroup/sister group of pigs+hippos or even-toed us??
PS: for ease in scholarship of abrahamic nonsense, check this site: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
includes Bible, Quran, Bof Mormon
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | July 31, 2009 10:55 PM
Huh?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 31, 2009 10:59 PM
Poe?Posted by: Sastra
|
July 31, 2009 11:01 PM
muslim girl with a phd #149 wrote:
Really? I looked around a bit, and it seems pretty dull for a fake site. The 'mermaid' post aside, it's low on sensationalism, and doesn't look like parody. Are you sure these aren't just "heretics?"
Being free to practice your religion does not entail that your religion is free from being criticized, mocked, analyzed, or ridiculed. On the contrary, freedom of religion leads to freedom to blaspheme religion.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
July 31, 2009 11:04 PM
Muslim girl with a phd, is it fake as in Not-a-True-Muslim-Website fake? Or is it exposing things you don't want exposed? Or what?
Posted by: Jadehawk | July 31, 2009 11:11 PM
ironic, how a rant about people not understanding Islam ends with the ranter demonstrating not understanding what "freedom of religion" means.
hint: it does NOT mean no one is ever allowed to disagree or make fun if it
Posted by: Ex-Muslim Atheist | July 31, 2009 11:27 PM
As much fun as it is to make fun of Muslims - and believe me, no one has more fun with it than those of us who were Muslims - in this case I am not sure it is warranted. If you read the actual Q&A (I don't think this is a fatwa, but of course applying that word to it is definitely SEXIER and makes for better mockery) Munajjid says that mermaids probably don't exist. He then delves into theoretical statements regarding the meat of such creatures and quotes largely from medieval scholars. Yeah, and I wonder what wonderful creatures medieval scholars in Europe believed in too? Yes, the exercise is totally theoretical and a complete waste of time, but then again, so what?
As for Muslim Girl with a PhD - which I doubt - progressive Islam.org is not a fake site. It's just that they represent the type of Muslims you'd rather takfir and pretend they don't exist... For shame, you should speak truth if you believe that Big Al is watching your ever move, even if you despise progressive Muslims.
Posted by: aka Sojo
|
July 31, 2009 11:27 PM
Everywhere else, they're known as guitarfish...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Getofx5WnH8
Posted by: Diving Fool | July 31, 2009 11:30 PM
So it is perfectly legal to eat her if I can catch her?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmKtxPRS1gI&feature=related
Posted by: aratina cage
|
July 31, 2009 11:35 PM
I don't know about progressiveislam.org being fake, but I found a really sick covert homophobic ex-gay antisemitic website called Eye on 'Gay Muslisms' that rants and raves about how progressiveislam.org is fake every time they cover gay muslims and goes much further in attacking a person named Laury Silvers who is purported to be progressiveislam.org's founder. So I am disinclined to believe a word of muslim girl with a phd.
Posted by: Xayide | July 31, 2009 11:45 PM
John Marley @130
Given that both the Mermaid Scar series and the legend it was based on portray immortality as just prolonged suffering, I think I'd prefer to get the death or monster results. ;)
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | August 1, 2009 1:04 AM
Anime provides more detailed information, though. Check the Mermaid Scar series-- many people who eat mermaid flesh experience unwanted side effects. :)
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | August 1, 2009 1:32 AM
It's called "fatwa No. 103991" at the top of the page.
No, he doesn't. Read it again. It's confused writing, but he doesn't say that. You need to read a little more of the site to get the flavor of how he operates.
Sigh. She wasn't claiming progressiveislam.org is a fake site, but that Islam QA is. She apparently didn't realize that Progressive Islam was the original source of the mockery.
Posted by: Dancaban | August 1, 2009 1:47 AM
But can you shag one?
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | August 1, 2009 2:19 AM
You need to read a little more of the site to get the flavor of how he operates.
See, for example, this category*:
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/cat/228
Here's one: "How can a person know if he has been possessed by the jinn or if he is affected by the evil eye?"
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/125543
*The medical category is also...special.
Posted by: windy | August 1, 2009 2:21 AM
Hey, it's Sheikh Mickey Mouse! Last time there were all these claims that he'd been mistranslated. Now we're told he's fake. Poor guy can't get any respect!
Posted by: thalarctos | August 1, 2009 2:37 AM
Depends which half is the fish part, and which half is the woman part, doesn't it?
Posted by: Janet Holmes | August 1, 2009 2:39 AM
I read the whole fatwa but I'm still confused. It was just a list of quotes from various authorities who could not agree with each other, with no guidance about what to actually do. I suppose this is how religion gets increasingly loony. In order to be sure of not making a fatal error you end up not eating anything that might be forbidden even if it's not actually forbidden. Like Jews not eating meat and milk together. The rule is actually that you shouldn't cook the kid in it's mother's milk, which sounds more like it's about not adding insult to injury to me, than an injunction against dairy and meat in the same meal. But over time, it's got more and more extreme as scared people try to forestall any chance of breaking the rules and outdo each other in piety. So your really wealthy Jew ends up with two complete kitchens!!
Posted by: John Morales | August 1, 2009 3:08 AM
Janet,
As I understand it, a fatwā is just a religious opinion by a qualified source — it's not definitive like, say, an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Pope.
Posted by: Alan | August 1, 2009 3:22 AM
Reminds me of the old joke.
What are her vitalstatistics?
36, 24 and 10/6 a pound....
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | August 1, 2009 4:26 AM
Upon seeing Caribbean manatees, Columbus apparently remarked that mermaids are less beautiful than they're shown in painting because, in some ways, they have a face like a man's.Posted by: blf | August 1, 2009 5:58 AM
Naked Bunny with a Whip (@30) promises:
Sounds like a good deal! I'm off to the boucherie to get a nice gutted lapin for dinner. This is not a bad thought about any fecking rabbits, or even about fecking a rabbit, I'm looking forwards to this…
Posted by: Mac from Oregon | August 1, 2009 6:39 AM
Mermaid Chili- serves 60
1 or 2 large mermaids- cut into bite sized pieces. Descale before cutting. Can take a couple of days to do correctly
15 lbs of hot peppers
1 lb salt
1/2 lb cumin
5 lbs onions sliced
1 lb brown sugar
Huge cauldron with lid over slow fire
1 small rabbit
place all ingredients except rabbit into cauldron and gently simmer for 2 days over low heat, stirring often. Will feed 60 people, if more are expected add the rabbit to the pot. Do this only if crowd gets too large as most people do not like a little hare in their chili.
Yum Yum Yummy
Posted by: BC | August 1, 2009 7:07 AM
Is this evidence of a religiously inspired extinction? In 182, there is a fatwa on mermaids. Islam being true, means that mermaids must have existed at the time. Since no-one has recorded a site of a mermaid in recent memory, they must have become extinct in between - possibly due to the fatwa allowing them to be eaten.
/joke
Posted by: Martin | August 1, 2009 8:03 AM
If you rephrase terminology from phylogenetics (cladistics) in the vernacular, we are all mermaids and mermen :)
Go cannibalism!
Posted by: amphiox | August 1, 2009 8:13 AM
"Depends which half is the fish part, and which half is the woman part, doesn't it?"
But does it, really? With the application of a little imagination. . . .
Posted by: amphiox | August 1, 2009 8:16 AM
Rest assured that if/when we do make physical contact with aliens, someone, somewhere (possibly in Asia) will develop a recipe for them.
Not necessarily for the sentient versions we actually talk to, but presumably they'll bring (or we'll find) some other representatives of their homeworld fauna/flora.
And even if the different biochemistries render the aliens deadly toxic, there will still be a recipe developed, and someone (perhaps not so many, but at least some) will try it.
Posted by: SC (Salty Current, of the blog), OM | August 1, 2009 8:30 AM
Might be a good rhetorical strategy for more reasonable Christians to start claiming atheists are behind the Creationist "Museum," an obviously fake site created to make Christians look ridiculous...
Posted by: Snarla | August 1, 2009 8:40 AM
To address a few points:
1- There is no mention of mermaids in the Qur'an or Hadith. So any argument that mermaids are part of Islam has no basis.
2- Yes, the word Ibn-Hazm uses is "people of the sea."
3- "Dog of the sea" is just an Arabic term for shark, and "pig of the sea" is a term for porpoise (not dolphin).
4- Since they clearly don't believe that a shark is literally a dog that lives in water, and they clearly don't believe that a porpoise is a pig that lives in water, does "people of the sea" literally mean human beings who live in water, or is it just a term for dugongs and manatees?
5- Of the cited scholars who even mention the existence of mermaids, and only four of them do, the most recent one died in 1836.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 1, 2009 8:48 AM
As I understand it, a fatwā is just a religious opinion by a qualified source — it's not definitive like, say, an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Pope. - John Morales
An important point! Islam, unlike Christianity, has never had a definitive source of doctrine, or a formal priesthood. So when anyone says "Islam says...", they're likely to be wrong. Of course there's the Koran, but like
mostall "sacred" texts, it has been given innumerable mutually contradictory interpretations - and indeed, it contradicts itself: Allah was apparently senile by the time he dictated it.Posted by: Knockgoats | August 1, 2009 9:03 AM
As for Muslim Girl with a PhD - which I doubt - ex-Muslim atheist
Why? As an ex-Muslim you are surely aware that different Muslim cultures and subcultures differ greatly in how women are treated. I worked with a Muslim woman with a PhD on a recently completed European research project. I don't know the details of her beliefs and practices, she wore normal (though fairly "modest") Western dress, did not avoid normal physical contact with men (e.g. shaking hands) but she did assert that she was a Muslim, avoid alcohol, and avoid eating meat in restaurants other than ones that specified it was halal.
Posted by: SC (Salty Current, of the blog), OM | August 1, 2009 9:14 AM
And is being cited in 2009. And the question, like those about jinns and the evil eye, is being raised in 2009. Seriously, you seem to be missing the point about this dude.
Well, in ex-Muslim atheist's defense, muslim girl doesn't exactly come across as PhD material, does she?
:)
Posted by: Snarla | August 1, 2009 9:51 AM
SC, I believe both the person who asked the question and the person who answered are having a little fun.
I'll have a post about this on my blog today or tomorrow.
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 1, 2009 9:55 AM
Something tells me you've never worked in academia, SC.Posted by: Tristan Heydt | August 1, 2009 10:03 AM
I didn't notice if anyone had already noted this, but there's a Japanise horror comic, School Mermaid, about high school girls catching, murdering, and cannibalizing mermaids in order to magically get boyfriends.
Cannibalizing you say? Yep, part of the climax involves the revelation that catching a mermaid but failing to eat it before sunrise will transform the catcher herself into a mermaid.
Posted by: SC (Salty Current, of the blog), OM | August 1, 2009 11:04 AM
Have you actually read the guy's site? The people mocking him - at ProgressiveIslam, my blog, and here - are "having a little fun." He is a serious loon, though merely an extreme example in a larger religious context that fosters such lunacy.
In fact, I have a PhD and work in academia. :)
I maintain that it is reasonable to doubt that someone who displays the level of rationality of muslim girl has a doctorate.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | August 1, 2009 11:19 AM
Shades of "Murmaider" by Dethklok. "It's about --- MERMAID MURDER!"
Posted by: Snarla | August 1, 2009 11:49 AM
My post is up if anyone wants to read it: http://snarla.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/is-it-permissible-to-eat-a-mermaid/
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 1, 2009 12:19 PM
SC, hmm OK. I've met PhD's that make me think there is no upper bound on the barking irrationality that can be displayed by the doctorated.MGwaPhD didn't even seem too far out on the fringes. Then again I'm a mathematician. The stereotype that we are all crazy isn't actually true, but being able to apply logic well to highly abstract systems definitely doesn't seem to imply that you can make non-deranged sense of real world things.
Posted by: SC "Read My Blog!" OM | August 1, 2009 12:20 PM
Good grief, but you're being dense, Snarla.
1)
Look, I don't know how many more times I can mention this, but I found the link to the fatwa on ProgressiveIslam.Org. They were laughing about it. Go to my blog for the link.
2) There is nothing on the Islam QA site to indicate that he is joking around. All indications are to the contrary. If you read the other fatwas there and consider this a sane and reasonable person and means of proceeding, then I pity you.
3) The fact that he evades (but leaves open) the question of the existence of mermaids (only because there's no clear guideline from the Koran on the subject), he turns it, like all questions, into one about how people should behave. This is all that's important. Unless you can tell other people how to live their lives, even in hypothetical situations that will never be actualized, what's the point of fatwas? This is the creepiness of religion. That "religious scholars" in general, who have no knowledge beyond their stupid texts, have power to decide for people how they live their lives is a real and pressing problem. All of this lies beneath the humor.
4) Since he doesn't mention manatees and the fatwa is clearly about mermaids, the fact that he's suggesting it would be OK to eat them is beyond disturbing.
Posted by: SC "Read My Blog!" OM | August 1, 2009 12:30 PM
I was just saying that it wouldn't have been unreasonable for ex-Muslim atheist to doubt her credentials on the basis of her post, and therefore his doubt didn't necessarily have anything to do with her being a Muslim woman - not that it's not possible that she really has a PhD.
No one's arguing with that! :D
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 1, 2009 12:30 PM
You should only eat the part below the waist. With lemon.
Posted by: E.V. | August 1, 2009 12:43 PM
Or Karma Sutra brand Honey Dust&trade.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 1, 2009 12:53 PM
The song The Eddystone Light has a definitive answer to that question.
Me father was the keeper of the Eddystone Light
And he slept with a mermaid one fine night
From this union there came three
A porpoise and a porgy and the other was me!
Posted by: SC "Read My Blog" OM | August 1, 2009 12:54 PM
I have to say, your comments have made me pretty angry, Snarla. I thought the story was funny, but a big part of my reason for posting it was to link to ProgressiveIslam.Org. They describe themselves as
From what I've seen, they do a good job. I named the post
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/2009/07/remind-anyone-of-anything.html
"Remind anyone of anything?" and noted that there was "Something oddly familiar about the whole thing..." precisely because that post and the comments reminded me of this blog. Even more amusingly, the poster and commenters there made basically the same unicorn jokes. Are you suggesting they think they're "stupid, humorless, and gullible"? No one here has said that about all Muslims, and I resent your condescending "I hope my blog post helps to dispel this notion."
Posted by: Toff | August 1, 2009 2:01 PM
I suspect Muslim Girl with a PhD is wrong, I've never seen islam-qa accused of being an anti-Muslim fake before. Finding and consulting the references to see if it is correct would pose a problem for those of us who don't speak arabic though.
Some scholars have also ruled that eating a type of anthropomorphic creature called a nasnas (or maybe it was the shikk, I'd have to check) was permissible also.
In The Exorcist Tradition in Islam, the author notes that the Hanafee scholar Jamaaluddeen as-Sijistaane (d1240CE) ruled that marrying mermaids was not permissible. I would suppose other scholars have ruled on this as well, perhaps some of them even found it to be permissible. I wonder if any ruled that both eating and marrying were?
Posted by: Jonathon | August 1, 2009 2:31 PM
OK... I have read the entire Qur'an, and re-read it regularly, and don't recall any mention of mermaids.
This is another example of overenthusiasm by some clerics who seek to "Islamize" everything.
Islam and the message of the Qur'an are much simpler than these people would like us to believe. Methinks they are just trying to justify their own positions as "experts" as opposed to dealing with the material that the Qur'an and the Sunnah provide them.
Posted by: shonny
|
August 1, 2009 2:45 PM
progressiveislam.org ?
How can backwardness be progressive?
Just curious.
Posted by: PattiF | August 1, 2009 2:46 PM
I used to believe in God but now I read your blog on the Internet and I no longer believe in God because of your masterful blogging. Congratulations. I used to think Thomas Aquinas, William Blake, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Flannery O'Connor, Malcom X, Kierkegaard, John Donne and Martin Luther King were smart before the Internet was invented. Now I use John Donne's original manuscripts as toilet paper, and it's all thanks to the power of blogging.
Posted by: SC "Read My Blog!" OM | August 1, 2009 3:08 PM
If you really were curious, you would check out the site rather than going by the name.
***
PattiF,
I didn't see any of the people you mentioned called stupid here. And their intelligence and writing ability should be irrelevant to whether or not you believe in a deity.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 1, 2009 3:10 PM
weak
Posted by: E.V. | August 1, 2009 3:15 PM
And we all roll our eyes as PattiF attempts to be ironic. (She thinks that her tepid satiric tone is masterful refutation.) Wow, you are so well read PattyF, it's such a shame you don't seem to have the ability to comprehend what you read.
Posted by: E.V. | August 1, 2009 3:32 PM
Awww, widdle PattiF wunned away, back to her happy pwace where magical sky faeries and unicorns dwell.
Posted by: MrFire | August 1, 2009 3:47 PM
You can now put the book Ruling on Eating Mermaids next to that other weighty tome, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat, in the Courtier's Library.
Posted by: Snarla | August 1, 2009 4:02 PM
SC "Read My Blog" OM, I had never been to Progressive Islam and have no opinion about it. I specifically referred to commenters at Pharyngula.
It looked to me like the Islam Q&A guy was having fun. He was answering a question that wasn't even asked.
I just went to your site and read your post. You reiterate Abu-Faris's post, which misrepresents the fatwa on Islam Q&A. Al-Munajjid does not conclude that it's okay to eat mermaids or that mermaids exist.
Posted by: Lynna | August 1, 2009 4:38 PM
LOL, loved that comment SC. So true. If you need a little extra cash, you could do some PR consulting for the Discovery Institute.
Posted by: Lynna | August 1, 2009 4:47 PM
Lots of folks up-thread are seriously arguing about the joke/non-joke character of the fatwa, etc. That's not the point of PZ's post, as far as I can tell. The point is that we are making fun of the whole idea of fatwas in the first place. A fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie is just as ridiculous as a fatwa against or allowing eating "sea people."
The whole fatwa ideological sand castle deserves to be washed away. If poking fun at mermaid recipes will put Fatwa pronouncements in perspective, carry on with the ridicule.
Posted by: Lynna | August 1, 2009 4:56 PM
Hey, Patti, I still admire Gerard Manley Hopkins, and Blake, and Donne. So does Christopher Hitchens, for that matter. Losing one's illusions about the Almighty Sky Daddy does not hamper one's enjoyment of literature. I think Hopkins would have made a great poet even without Sky Daddy. He had that poetic inclination, and he even tried to rein it in and couldn't. He would have left us more great poetry if he hadn't mistakenly thought that Sky Daddy would disapprove of such an earthly pleasure.
A free and open mind is fertile ground for appreciation of the literary arts. And one does discard nor disregard fine literature on the basis of ideology. Oh wait, religious fanatics do just that.
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | August 1, 2009 5:05 PM
And what I was telling you before you composed your little screed was that you should go to my post (which PZ linked to) and recognize the source and that this wasn't about PZ, the commenters here, or anyone disparaging all Muslims in the way you suggest and you riding in on your dazzling steed in defense of cultural understanding. Get over your damn self, already.
And while I don't give a shit about your opinion of it (my point was that it was a Muslim site that originally mocked Islam QA), you really should check it out. The political discussion is interesting (see the recent post "The first fitna" and the discussion in the comments), and the people there appear to have a better sense of humor than you or those on the blogs you frequent, if the comments in your post are any indication.
Yes, without digging any deeper you made a snotty and unsubstatiated claim about what "many" of the commenters here think about Muslims rather than recognize that that wasn't what this was about. "I think what bothers me about many of the commenters on PZ’s site is that they take for granted that Muslims are stupid, humorless, and gullible" is an obnoxious statement you've supported in no way. If you want to address specific comments by specific commenters about Muslims you should absolutely do so, but our posts and this thread are not evidence for your claim.
And you've provided no evidence in support of this opinion. You seem to have ignored my links to the other fatwas by this nut. Again, you have no basis for thinking he was "having fun." The evidence clearly suggests the contrary. He's not kidding around, he's not being mistranslated, and the site isn't a fake. What he's doing is ridiculous, and that's why people are ridiculing it.
Look, it's a confused bit of writing, bit many of the people you quote in your post - "i’ll keep that in mind next time i catch a mermaid," etc. - read it the same way. And it's a fucking authoritative disquisition on the permissibility of eating fucking mermaids. He does not conclude that it is impermissable or that they do not exist. Whether or not they exist would seem a simple enough question for a "scholar" to answer. But then, you don't seem to have read enough of that site to gain a full impression of his beliefs.
It's a ludicrous post on a ludicrous site that is extreme but symptomatic of, and encouraged by, authoritarian religion.
Posted by: Primewonk | August 1, 2009 8:14 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp @64
[re: Dogfish Head beers
yes they do, yes they do.
Unfortunately I can't get them in SC. I have to drive to NC or GA.
grumble.]
PW - I'd like it noted for the record that Dogfish Head 120 Minute IPA is the best beer in the world.
Posted by: E.V. | August 1, 2009 10:07 PM
A caveat for those who trollishly engage S.C.: If you don't what you're talking about beware, she does and she'll happily tear you a new one.
To borrow from the Big Lebowski - Nobody fucks with the
JesusS.C.Posted by: Nomad | August 2, 2009 5:13 AM
Out of all this heated religious discussion.. the thing I'm taking out of this is that bit about referring to some fish as "pig of the sea". I mean why not.. we have "chicken of the sea".
I still find it odd that they use a forbidden to eat land animal as the name to apply to the aquatic creature that is good to eat, though. I mean it's fucking PETA that's trying to rename fish "sea kittens" to try to make them sound less appealing.
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | August 2, 2009 5:40 AM
*blush*
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | August 2, 2009 7:01 AM
Category: Slavery
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/cat/362
fatwa #20085
"Intercourse with female prisoners of war"
Fun!
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 2, 2009 7:21 AM
I used to think Thomas Aquinas, William Blake, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Flannery O'Connor, Malcom X, Kierkegaard, John Donne and Martin Luther King were smart - PattyF
Oh, Malcolm X. Wasn't he the idiot who was taken in by antisemitic conman Elijah Muhammed?
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 2, 2009 7:26 AM
...oh, and Kierkagaard: wasn't he the henchman of the Piranha brothers who "just sat in the corner, biting the heads of whippets."?
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 2, 2009 7:28 AM
Tsk. "biting the heads off whippets", of course. Now Dinsdale will probably have to nail my head to the floor.
Posted by: Valheru | August 3, 2009 6:45 AM
There's an old joke that goes:
Q: "What's the saltiest thing in the universe?"
A: "A kipper's c*nt".
I figure Mermaid c*nt is right up there.
Posted by: Rob Clack | August 3, 2009 8:02 AM
Presumably Chthulu is also halaal.
Posted by: Artificial Blogger | August 19, 2009 5:38 PM
Hi,
Are you interested by a 125x125 advertising button for your blog ? Or maybe just a link to us. We are looking for affiliates, you can earn 30% on each sales.
(Found the affiliate menu at the end of the page)
Best Regards,
Artificial Blogger Team.
Posted by: justin tv izle
|
March 11, 2011 3:43 PM
I agree with Snarla "SC, I believe both the person who asked the question and the person who answered are having a little fun."