In the 2015 book, Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue, Sam Harris makes the following statement, which that reveals that he does not have a firm understanding of Islam, or of the Qur’an:

“You can’t say, for instance, that Islam recommends eating bacon and drinking alcohol. And even if you could find some way of reading the Qur’an that would permit those things, you can’t say that its central message is that a devout Muslim should consume as much bacon and alcohol as humanly possible.”

[emphasis added]

- Islam and the Future of Tolerance, p 68

In these two sentences, Harris indicates that he believes the following about Islam and the consumption of pork and alcohol:

A. That Islam does not recommend eating pork or drinking alcohol

B. That to interpret the text of the Qur’an as allowing the consumption of pork or alcohol would require Muslims to produce an outlandish or implausible reading of the Qur’an

C. That even if Muslims could achieve B, they could not argue that consuming as much bacon and alcohol as humanly possible is the central message of the Qur’an

Point C we can set aside, as Harris is obviously right about that. But is he right about A & B ? No, he is not. In this sentence, Harris exhibits a misunderstanding about Islam that is common to many non-Muslims.

While it is true that the consumption of pork is technically forbidden in Islam and Islamic law, and indeed Muslims to consider its consumption to be sinful, Islam itself gives Muslims license to consume foods which it forbids, if a Muslim needs to do so. The circumstances under which Islam considers eating foods which Allah has forbidden vary according to the domain of fikh (Islamic jurisprudence) in which they occur. To see the scriptural justification for this, let us turn to the Holy Qur’an:

He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

— Qur’an 2:173, Sahih International Translation. Available online at www.Quran.com/2/173

“Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah , and [those animals] killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a head-long fall or by the goring of horns, and those from which a wild animal has eaten, except what you [are able to] slaughter [before its death], and those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and [prohibited is] that you seek decision through divining arrows. That is grave disobedience. This day those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion. But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin — then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”

— Qur’an 5:3, Sahih International Translation. Available online at www.Quran.com/5/3

Say, “I do not find within that which was revealed to me [anything] forbidden to one who would eat it unless it be a dead animal or blood spilled out or the flesh of swine — for indeed, it is impure — or it be [that slaughtered in] disobedience, dedicated to other than Allah . But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], then indeed, your Lord is Forgiving and Merciful.”

— Quran 6:145, Sahih International Translation. Available online at www.Quran.com/6/145

He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah . But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit] — then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

— Quran 16:145, Sahih International Translation. Available online at www.Quran.com/6/145

Clearly, even on a literal reading, Qur’an 2:173, 5:3, 6:145 and 16:145 allow for eating pork if the need arises. How are these verses interpreted in Islam? Let us consult the revered Sunni Muslim theologian and jurist Syed Abul A’la Mawdudi. Mawdudi, regularly touted as the most important Sunni theologian of the 20th century, produced a commentary on the Qur’an entitled Tafhim al-Qur’an, “Towards Understanding the Qur’an”. In the footnoted commentary to 2:173, Mawdudi states:

“This verse grants permission to use prohibited things with three stipulations.”

- Syed Abul A’la Mawdudi, Tafhim al-Qur’an, p 135.

So, according to Mawdudi, the most revered Sunni theologian of the 20th century, Qur’an 2:173 “grants permission to use prohibited things with three stipulations”, which he then goes on to enumerate. This permission given by the Qur’an to use prohibited things includes the flesh of swine, as it is specifically named in the first line of the verse. Is Mawdudi alone in his reading of Qur’an 2:173?

Sayyid Qutb was on of the leading Islamic idealogues of the twentieth century. Qutb’s passionate evangelism towards the Sunni Muslim masses of the MiddleEast was greatly influential, and he is regarded by historians as one of the key figures in the creation of the movement to restore the Caliphate, now apparently successful with the emergence of Islamic State. Qutb wrote a widely read and distributed tafsir on the Qur’an entitled In the Shade of the Qur’an. In the first volume, his commentary on Qur’an 2:173 is as follows:

“In establishing the above restrictions, however, Islam takes account of the circumstances under which they would apply. Necessities could arise which would entail a measured lifting or relaxation of those restrictions. These are dictated strictly by the need at the time, and on condition that consumption of forbidden meat is not, in any way, permitted for reasons of self-indulgence or in defiance of God’s instructions. “ ‘But he who is driven by necessity, not intending to transgress nor exceeding his need, incurs no sin. God is much-Forgiving, Merciful.’ (Verse 173) This is a general Islamic principle in all matters of this kind, and can be extended to situations of a similar nature. Any life-threatening situation creates a necessity which would allow a person to eat or drink forbidden things if alternatives cannot be found, within the conditions mentioned above. “Scholars differ in their definition of what constitutes necessity. Are the situations in which necessity exists only those specifically cited by God, or could other, similar circumstances be included? Nor is there any consensus of opinion among scholars on what constitutes relieving the necessity: is it confined to the smallest of measures, or is it a full meal or drink? However, we are happy to confine our discussion here to pointing out the general principles that are of relevance in these matters, without discussing these differences in detail.”

[emphasis added]

- Sayyid Qutb, In the Shade of the Qur’an. Vol 1, p 185

Are Qutb and Mawdudi alone in their understanding of the Qur’an? Let us consult another source, Yusuf Qaradawi. Qaradawi is perhaps the most revered Sunni Muslim cleric in the world today. He has published more than 120 books, and is known for his Al Jazeera broadcast show, al-Sharīʿa wa al-Ḥayāh (“Sharia and Life”), which reaches some 60 million viewers weekly. In his hugely popular book, Al-Halal Wal Haram Fil Islam (“The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam”), Qaradawi discusses the permission that the Qur’an gives to partake of forbidden things:

“While Islâm has narrowed the range of what is prohibited, it is, at the same time, very strict in seeing that its prohibitions are observed. Accordingly, it has blocked the ways, apparent or hidden, leading to what is prohibited. Thus, what is conducive to the haram is itself haram, what assists in committing the haram is haram, any rationalization for engaging in the haram is haram, and so on, to the last of the principles which we have elucidated. At the same time, Islâm is not oblivious to the exigencies of life, to their magnitude, nor to human weakness and capacity to face them. It permits the Muslim, under the compulsion of necessity to eat a prohibited food in quantities sufficient to remove the necessity and save himself from death. In this context, after listing the prohibited foods in the form of dead animals, blood, and pork, Allâh Ta‘ala says: “…But if one is compelled by necessity, neither craving (it) nor transgressing, there is no sin on him; indeed, Allâh is Forgiving, Merciful.” (2:173) And this is repeated at four places in the Qur‘ân after each mention of the prohibited foods. “On the basis of these and similar verse of the Qur‘ân, Islâmic jurists formulated an important principle, namely, that “necessity removes restrictions.” However, it is to be noted that the individual experiencing the necessity is permitted to eat the haram food with the stipulation that he is “neither craving it nor transgressing.” This is interpreted to mean that he should not desire to relish it nor transgress by eating more than the bare amount needed to satisfy his hunger. From this stipulation, jurists have derived another principle, that “The quantity permitted is determined by the (magnitude) of the necessity.” Here the underlying idea is that, even though compelled by necessity, a person need not surrender to it or embrace it with eagerness; rather he must live with what is essentially halal and seek a way to return to so that he may not become accustomed to the haram or begin enjoying it under the pretext of necessity. “In permitting the use of the haram under necessity, Islâm is true to its spirit and general principles. This spirit, which we find permeating its laws, is to make life easy and less oppressive for human beings, and to lift the burdens and yokes imposed by earlier systems and religions. True is the saying of Allâh, the Almighty: …Allâh desires ease for you, and He does not desire hardship for you…. (2:185) …It is not Allâh’s desire to place a burden upon you, but He desires to purify you and to perfect His favor on you in order that you may be thankful. (5:7 (5:6)) Allâh desires to lighten your burden, for man was created weak. (4:28)”

[emphasis in bold added]

- Yusuf Qaradawi, The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam, p 32–33

Thus, with respect to point B, Harris is clearly mistaken. Even on a narrow or literal reading, Qur’an 2:173 allows for the consumption of bacon under certain circumstances dictated by necessity, while not removing the general prohibition on it:

“…But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful.” (Q 2:173)

Curiously, Nawaz, who is supposed to be both knowledgeable and honest about Islam, replies on p 78 of the book, saying:

- Maajid Nawaz, Islam and the Future of Tolerance, p 78

This misrepresents the text of the Qur’an, which as we have seen does indeed provide justification for eating bacon.

However, Nawaz’s statement also misrepresents Islamic law — Sharia. The word “necessity” appears in 2:173 and in many other places in the Qur’an. In Arabic, this word is rendered as: ضرورة, “ḍarūra”. From this Muslim jurists have derived a principle which allows Muslims to violate Sharia. The great historian Bernard Lewis, widely regarded as among the greatest scholars of Islam, speaking of the development of Islamic law, tells us the following in Islam and the West:

“They were further helped in this by another principle laid down by the jurists, that of ḍarūra, necessity. Even in the Qur’an there are verses that sometimes implicitly and sometimes explicitly permit, on ground of necessity, what would otherwise be forbidden. As developed by jurists, the principle of necessity applied in two forms. The first, relating to individuals, deals with the dire constraints under which a person might find himself. A Muslim, may for example, eat pork or carrion rather than starve to death. A seafarer my throw another seafarer’s goods into the sea if their boat is overladen and about to sink. In the second sense, necessity no longer refers to individual constraint but, rather, to the exigencies of social and economic — and some would ad political — life. But the principle of ḍarūra has limits. For the individual, these are clear and unequivocal: Thus for example, to save his life, a Muslim may eat pork…” [emphasis added]

— Bernard Lewis, Islam and the West, p 45.

Furthermore, concerning point A, whether or Muslims could read the Qur’an as recommending eating bacon, Harris is mistaken there, too. In many circumstances, the consumption of bacon is obligatory for Muslims.

That may sound surprising to those unfamiliar with the topsy-turvy worldview of total compulsion and prohibition that is Islam, but that is what the major academic scholars of Islam tell us, in the authoritative Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition. Researched and published over a period of 50 years, the 13-volume Encycolpaedia of Islam, New Edition is considered to be the standard scholarly reference on Islam. Below is from the entry on ḍarūra, which tells us that eating pork is considered obligatory in many circumstances for Muslims. That is to say, all four schools of fikh (Islamic jurisprudence) not only recommend, but outright command Muslims to consume pork, if the necessity (ḍarūra) arises:

Ḍarūra, necessity (also iḍṭirār ), in works of fiḳh has a narrow meaning when it is used to denote what may be called the technical state of necessity, and a wider sense when authors use it to describe the necessities or demands of social and economic life, which the jurists had to take into account in their elaboration of the law which was otherwise independent of these factors. I. The state of necessity, whose effects recall those of violence, does not result from threats expressed by a person, but from certain factual circumstances which may oblige an individual, fnding himself in a dangerous situation which they have brought about (shipwrecked, dying of hunger or thirst in the desert, for example), to do some action forbidden by the law, or to conclude a legal transaction on very unfavourable terms in order to escape from the danger which threatens him. The Ḳurʾān contains numerous verses which, directly or indirectly, legitimize on grounds of necessity certain acts which in principle are forbidden (II, 168; V, 5; VI, 119; XVI, 116). Ibn Nudjaym derived from this a maxim which became famous: al-ḍarūrāt tubīḥ al-maḥẓūrāt , which the Ottoman Madjalla (art. 21) reproduced literally and which may be translated: “Necessity makes lawful that which is forbidden”. The effects of the state of necessity of which the writers here fixed the conditions and limits, are more or less drastic according to the domain of fikh in which they occur. a) In what concerns prohibitions of a religious character (the prohibition against eating pork or dead animals, or against drinking blood or other liquids regarded as impure, for example), it is admitted without difference between the Schools, that necessity legitimizes the non-observance of these rules. It follows — and this is the opinion which has prevailed in doctrine — that one is even obliged to disregard them in a case of danger. [emphasis added] Y. Linant de Bellefonds, Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition. Volume 2 C-G, p 163. Entry on Ḍarūra.

Thus, Harris dead wrong on point A. Islam doesn’t merely recommend, but in fact outright commands Muslims to consume pork, in circumstances dictated by ḍarūra, necessity. Thus Nawaz’s statment on p. 78 misrepresents both the Qur’an and Sharia law. Maajid Nawaz does indeed have a “reading” that justifies eating bacon.

Our findings on the permissibility of consuming of pork in Islam are summarized in the below table.

Table: Permissibility of Consuming Pork in Islam

Syed Abul A’la Mawdudi, Sayyid Qutb, Yusuf Qaradawi, Bernard Lewis, Y. Linnant Bellefonds and Allah, Lord of the Worlds all agree that Muslims may consume pork in certain circumstsances. Yet Maajid Nawaz cannot “find a reading” of the Qur’an that would allow eating bacon. Is he somehow mistaken about his faith? Did he forget about ḍarūra and Qur’an 2:173?

I believe that Nawaz is clearly fibbing when he says that he “doesn’t have a reading that justifies eating bacon”. It is common knowledge among Muslims that partaking in things that Islam forbids is allowed in cases of need, according to the circumstances they find themselves in.

Islam places its believers in a state of war with non-Muslims, yet allows them to deceive non-Muslims behaviorally, by violating Islamic law when they deem it necessary. Nawaz surely knows how naive Sam Harris and his readers are about Islam, and is happy to keep them in the dark.