Question for Muslims: Replicated food Halal?

[chrinFinity]

Hi,

I'm writing a story and this question is relevant, and I can form my own opinion based on research, but as I'm a secular westerner it strikes me that it would be culturally appropriative for me to draw my own conclusion on this subject.

So I ask for Trek fans on this forum who are followers of Islam, if you are willing, to please share your opinion with me: Would replicated food be Halal? All of it, or only some of it, and why?

Please feel free to explain in detail if you wish.

Also I would kindly ask that anyone intending to give an opinion on this subject in this thread, please identify whether or not you are actually following halal dietary practice in your daily life. Thank you.

 

[chrinFinity]

Also: Same question about Synthehol. Thank you.

 

[scotpens]

I'm neither Muslim nor orthodox Jew, but FWIW, here's a rather lengthy discussion on whether replicated meat could be considered kosher.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I'm neither Muslim nor orthodox Jew, but FWIW, here's a rather lengthy discussion on whether replicated meat could be considered kosher.

In spite of the discussion, the answer is really quite simple: until there is a problem, no definitive answer is necessary.

My own speculation is that the answer is that they are only kosher if taken from a kosher source: it must be taken from a kosher animal slaughtered in a kosher manner.

 

[HIjol]

I am a Secular Westerner here in the United Arab Emirates, and I asked your question to a few of my colleagues here. The "source" of the food is a big part of Halal, but there is also a certification process and ritual involved. Of course, Pork, fluids (blood) and alcohol are haram (forbidden) but there is another standard for food that says that anything is allowed not specifically forbidden by the Holy Qur'an.

You did not mention it, but the above answer also applies to medicines, some procedures, and some other facets of Muslim life.

Interesting question and Thread. I would love to know more about the book, and to have a chance to read it when it comes out. Good Luck!

 

[scotpens]

My own speculation is that the answer is that they are only kosher if taken from a kosher source: it must be taken from a kosher animal slaughtered in a kosher manner.

My take is that, since it's a synthetic product that never came from an animal, replicated meat would be pareve -- just like meat analogues made from soy protein or other non-animal ingredients.

But I'm not a rabbi, and I don't play one on television.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

My own speculation is that the answer is that they are only kosher if taken from a kosher source: it must be taken from a kosher animal slaughtered in a kosher manner.

My take is that, since it's a synthetic product that never came from an animal, replicated meat would be pareve -- just like meat analogues made from soy protein or other non-animal ingredients.

But I'm not a rabbi, and I don't play one on television.

No one confuses Tofurky for turkey, shechted or not. And ultimately, the debate will occur between those in the smaller Orthodox community, based on (1) how they interpret the sampling process and more importantly, (2) their level of comfort.

 

[sbk1234]

I'm Jewish, not Muslim, but looking at my own cultural dietary rules, I wouldn't think it would be any different than me eating Kosher turkey bacon. No matter what it looks like, it's still only the sum of the ingredients used.
However, I could see some people choosing to stick with their dietary laws even with replicated food, simply as a way of keeping in touch with their own culture and traditions.

 

[Christopher]

Also: Same question about Synthehol. Thank you.

My semi-educated guess would be, no synthehol. Islamic dietary laws forbid all intoxicants, not just alcohol. Synthehol's effects can be shaken off at will, and it's non-addictive, but it is still an intoxicant. Data referred to its "intoxicating effects" in "Relics," and several Voyager episodes established that Seven of Nine's metabolism was highly susceptible to synthehol intoxication, with the Doctor specifically using the word "intoxicated" to describe her state in "Timeless." Also, Tomin in "Someone to Watch Over Me" lacked the enzyme to break down the intoxicating compound. So synthehol is explicitly an intoxicant, therefore it's presumably haraam.

As for the kosher/halal-ness of replicated pork or whatever, it occurs to me that it might be much the same philosophical question of whether a transported person (or a transporter duplicate like Tom Riker) is the same person as the original. A replicated food item is created from the scanned molecular pattern of a real food item, albeit assembled from a different set of particles; but quantum-mechanically speaking, the source of the particles doesn't matter, because it's the information that defines identity. So from a quantum standpoint, a replicated ham sandwich could be treated as having the same identity as the real ham sandwich it was scanned from, and thus could be said to have come from a live pig just as much as the ham sandwich did, even if it's one step further removed.

On the other hand, it could be that the molecular-level resolution of a replicator, as opposed to the quantum-level resolution of a transporter, means that it doesn't share quantum identity with the original; the quantum entanglement is broken and what's recorded in the replicator is just a description of the original rather than its actual quantum "self." In that case, the ham sandwich would just be a replica of the original and not be directly from the pig. I think that's a more plausible interpretation, particularly given that replicated foods are often said to have a noticeably different taste from the genuine articles, suggesting some subtle molecular variations. But it's possible that some Muslims and Jews would prefer to err on the side of caution.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

A replicated food item is created from the scanned molecular pattern of a real food item, albeit assembled from a different set of particles; but quantum-mechanically speaking, the source of the particles doesn't matter, because it's the information that defines identity. So from a quantum standpoint, a replicated ham sandwich could be treated as having the same identity as the real ham sandwich it was scanned from, and thus could be said to have come from a live pig just as much as the ham sandwich did, even if it's one step further removed.

On the other hand, it could be that the molecular-level resolution of a replicator, as opposed to the quantum-level resolution of a transporter, means that it doesn't share quantum identity with the original; the quantum entanglement is broken and what's recorded in the replicator is just a description of the original rather than its actual quantum "self." In that case, the ham sandwich would just be a replica of the original and not be directly from the pig. I think that's a more plausible interpretation, particularly given that replicated foods are often said to have a noticeably different taste from the genuine articles, suggesting some subtle molecular variations. But it's possible that some Muslims and Jews would prefer to err on the side of caution.

This is how I could see it being interpreted. Let's say a ritually slaughtered hallal or kashrut animal were replicated at the quantum level, but its substance was molecularly manipulated to resemble the composition of another, then it should be ok. The more it is a quantum copy of the original, the more problematic it becomes. However, the question could not be determined individually in the case of kashrut. As I have already written several times, the opinions that will matter are Orthodox rabbis and their communities, who will take the science into consideration, but will also apply their own principles and interpretations.

 

[Christopher]

^I dunno, the impression I get is that it's the original source that matters, no matter how much the food item has been altered or processed along the way. For instance, even something made with gelatin derived from animal sources, like Jell-O, is off-limits. So it's not its similarity to the original product that matters, it's whether it comes directly from that origin, whether it's ultimately a byproduct of the killing of that animal in an unsanctioned way. If it shares quantum identity, if it's the same entity in the equivalent sense to a person being the same entity after going through a transporter, then that chain of origination is unbroken and it's haraam. But if the molecular resolution of the replicator means that identity is not conserved, then it's just an incredibly accurate simulation and there's no direct chain of origination, so it's halal.

The kind of quantum identity I'm talking about is not how closely it resembles the original, it's whether, philosophically, it's a direct continuation of the original or a separate copy. See, my hypothesis is that an individual disintegrated and reconstructed by quantum teleportation is the same, original being both before and after, even if they're put together from a different set of particles, because there's a direct quantum entanglement between the original and the replica, and that's equivalent to the quantum correlation between the different particles that make up our own brains and bodies in the first place. What makes us continuous beings to begin with, rather than just clouds of unrelated particles, is the quantum interaction and correlation among those particles, so if the equivalent correlation is preserved between the person or item going into the transporter and the person or item coming out, then it is the same person or item regardless of the physical discontinuity. But if the entanglement is broken, if the particles aren't directly correlated, then the person/item that comes out the other end is a different entity than the one that went in, an exact copy rather than the original.

And it seems to me that the molecular resolution of a replicator wouldn't preserve that quantum correlation/identity. After all, quantum information must be conserved; you can't scan and reproduce it at the quantum level without destroying it in the original source. If you store the information to make multiple copies, then the copies are not the original information, just replicas of it. (Although that raises some prickly questions about Kirk in "The Enemy Within" and about Will and Tom Riker.)

 

[Overgeeked]

No one confuses Tofurky for turkey, shechted or not. And ultimately, the debate will occur between those in the smaller Orthodox community, based on (1) how they interpret the sampling process and more importantly, (2) their level of comfort.

This, plus...

(3) the version of the religion they practice, (4) how devout they are personally, and (5) if they're simply having a bad day and make a mistake or choose not to follow the rules that day.

The trouble with discussions like this is that they largely assume religions and the religious are monolithic. Orthodox vs Reform Judaism has a big gap. Sunni vs Shia Islam has a big gap. So too with every other variety of various religions extant, extinct, and yet to come. To say nothing of the piety or devoutness of the individual practitioner generally or on a given day.

If you live in the West you likely have neighbors who are devoutly "lip service" Christians, that is they claim to be Christian and possibly go to church on Sundays, but unless they told you how Christian they were, you'd never know it from their actions. Or those who you're surprised to learn are religious because they don't announce it, yet quietly follow their faith, organized or not. So too with most religions. No, not everyone is a "lip service" or "quietly devout" practitioner, but every religion has members like that, and every variety in between.

My semi-educated guess would be, no synthehol. Islamic dietary laws forbid all intoxicants, not just alcohol. Synthehol's effects can be shaken off at will, and it's non-addictive, but it is still an intoxicant. Data referred to its "intoxicating effects" in "Relics," and several Voyager episodes established that Seven of Nine's metabolism was highly susceptible to synthehol intoxication, with the Doctor specifically using the word "intoxicated" to describe her state in "Timeless." Also, Tomin in "Someone to Watch Over Me" lacked the enzyme to break down the intoxicating compound. So synthehol is explicitly an intoxicant, therefore it's presumably haraam.

As for the kosher/halal-ness of replicated pork or whatever, it occurs to me that it might be much the same philosophical question of whether a transported person (or a transporter duplicate like Tom Riker) is the same person as the original. A replicated food item is created from the scanned molecular pattern of a real food item, albeit assembled from a different set of particles; but quantum-mechanically speaking, the source of the particles doesn't matter, because it's the information that defines identity. So from a quantum standpoint, a replicated ham sandwich could be treated as having the same identity as the real ham sandwich it was scanned from, and thus could be said to have come from a live pig just as much as the ham sandwich did, even if it's one step further removed.

On the other hand, it could be that the molecular-level resolution of a replicator, as opposed to the quantum-level resolution of a transporter, means that it doesn't share quantum identity with the original; the quantum entanglement is broken and what's recorded in the replicator is just a description of the original rather than its actual quantum "self." In that case, the ham sandwich would just be a replica of the original and not be directly from the pig. I think that's a more plausible interpretation, particularly given that replicated foods are often said to have a noticeably different taste from the genuine articles, suggesting some subtle molecular variations. But it's possible that some Muslims and Jews would prefer to err on the side of caution.

Though I suspect you're largely right about the technicalities presented, there's also the article of faith to be considered. Quite a few devoutly religious people would likely hold their nose at the technicality you present and simply opt not to partake because their scripture commands them not to eat these things. While others would likely be perfectly happy to get through on the technicality. But then, it is religion, it's clearly not about making sense.

 

[Relayer1]

I'd (with no degree of expertise whatsoever) assume that as no killing is required, it would be similar to other non slaughter obtained foodstuffs, soya, quorn, tofu or even vegetables.

I'm basing this mainly on my own feelings as a vegetarian, and I'd eat replicated meat without a second thought.

 

[DavidGutierrez]

A replicated food item is created from the scanned molecular pattern of a real food item, albeit assembled from a different set of particles; but quantum-mechanically speaking, the source of the particles doesn't matter, because it's the information that defines identity. So from a quantum standpoint, a replicated ham sandwich could be treated as having the same identity as the real ham sandwich it was scanned from, and thus could be said to have come from a live pig just as much as the ham sandwich did, even if it's one step further removed.

On the other hand, it could be that the molecular-level resolution of a replicator, as opposed to the quantum-level resolution of a transporter, means that it doesn't share quantum identity with the original; the quantum entanglement is broken and what's recorded in the replicator is just a description of the original rather than its actual quantum "self." In that case, the ham sandwich would just be a replica of the original and not be directly from the pig. I think that's a more plausible interpretation, particularly given that replicated foods are often said to have a noticeably different taste from the genuine articles, suggesting some subtle molecular variations. But it's possible that some Muslims and Jews would prefer to err on the side of caution.

This is how I could see it being interpreted. Let's say a ritually slaughtered hallal or kashrut animal were replicated at the quantum level, but its substance was molecularly manipulated to resemble the composition of another, then it should be ok. The more it is a quantum copy of the original, the more problematic it becomes. However, the question could not be determined individually in the case of kashrut. As I have already written several times, the opinions that will matter are Orthodox rabbis and their communities, who will take the science into consideration, but will also apply their own principles and interpretations.

Now we're getting into letter of the law vs spirit.

There is another argument which might suggest that because of the method of replication (whether replicators convert energy to matter or simply reassemble generic slabs of protein is unclear in canon), nothing replicated is Kosher. Since source is the issue, if either method of replication is true, then all replicated food might be considered unclean.

 

[Christopher]

Now we're getting into letter of the law vs spirit.

Honestly, I think that the dietary restrictions in Judaism, Islam, etc. were originally about health and safety. I mean, here's the passage from the Qur'an (or, rather, the English translation of it, which to a Muslim is not the same thing):

The Holy Qur'an, 5:3 - Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars)...

"Dead meat" probably means like roadkill, something you find lying around already dead, which might be infected or rotten. Ditto for blood. Pigs were a no-no because of trichynosis, I think; it wasn't yet known that pork made people sick because of a disease when it was undercooked, just that it made some people inexplicably sick and thus was probably unclean/immoral. Same with animals killed by predation or accident -- more roadkill. You don't know where it's been. Only if you've slaughtered it yourself (or had your local butcher do it) can you be reasonably sure of its provenance and safety.

So I think things like these were originally meant more as public service announcements about food safety than an arbitrary moral prohibition -- although at the time, again, disease was not understood, so it was probably seen as divine punishment for sinning in some way. Looking at it rationally, there's really no practical reason for most of these restrictions anymore, now that we have better knowledge of medicine and food safety and so forth. But as stated above, it's more about how the individual believer chooses to show their faith. Whether the origin of a custom is arbitrary or still relevant in a practical sense isn't as important to the devout as what it symbolizes to them spiritually and personally.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Now we're getting into letter of the law vs spirit.

Honestly, I think that the dietary restrictions in Judaism, Islam, etc. were originally about health and safety. I mean, here's the passage from the Qur'an (or, rather, the English translation of it, which to a Muslim is not the same thing):

The Holy Qur'an, 5:3 - Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars)...

"Dead meat" probably means like roadkill, something you find lying around already dead, which might be infected or rotten. Ditto for blood. Pigs were a no-no because of trichynosis, I think; it wasn't yet known that pork made people sick because of a disease when it was undercooked, just that it made some people inexplicably sick and thus was probably unclean/immoral. Same with animals killed by predation or accident -- more roadkill. You don't know where it's been. Only if you've slaughtered it yourself (or had your local butcher do it) can you be reasonably sure of its provenance and safety.

So I think things like these were originally meant more as public service announcements about food safety than an arbitrary moral prohibition -- although at the time, again, disease was not understood, so it was probably seen as divine punishment for sinning in some way. Looking at it rationally, there's really no practical reason for most of these restrictions anymore, now that we have better knowledge of medicine and food safety and so forth. But as stated above, it's more about how the individual believer chooses to show their faith. Whether the origin of a custom is arbitrary or still relevant in a practical sense isn't as important to the devout as what it symbolizes to them spiritually and personally.

No, there is an ethical component to Kashrut.

Only flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

In several places in the Talmud, the shechita (butcher) may not "pause," prolonging the process of death of the animal, and must use a knife sharp and long enough to complete the process without pausing.

 

[Christopher]

No, there is an ethical component to Kashrut.

Only flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

Sure, I didn't say there wasn't. Just that there's more than one factor going in. Some of it was about ethics, some was about religion -- the bit in the quote I posted about not eating sacrificed animals -- but some was pretty clearly about health and safety. But it all gets blended together in people's minds. I mean, why should pork specifically be banned when other meats are okay? If it were purely about ethics, it'd be all meat, like in Hinduism. Pork was singled out because of the disease risk associated with it. At the time, without a scientific understanding of disease, there wasn't much of a difference perceived between physical uncleanliness and moral uncleanliness.

 

[USS Triumphant]

If you could see me, you'd know I don't participate in any religious dietary restrictions, or any for any other reason (other than flavor and personal preference), either, really.

That said, to the OP, I would say that you shouldn't look for a single answer in this thread. It is the nature of religions that one answer (and the rationale given) may be right for the Sunni, another for the Shi'a, yet another for the Druze, and several others for sects of Islam that don't even exist yet (I'm sure that Andorian converts to Islam would have their own fatwas and dietary considerations - and don't think things like that wouldn't happen. )

 

[Ithekro]

One wonders, if such issues did become an issues, would there be any Orthodox Jews or Muslims in Starfleet? Strict dietary requirements that refuse the replicator, plus specific holidays, to to point were an officer could not not turn on a light switch (would opening a standard sliding door be outlimits? Does it create a spark to open?)

Would the use of the replicator be banned due to it technically being an act of creation? There are issues when it comes to devout religious orders and practises. Might be a reason they more or less wrote religion (at least Earth religions) off for the 24th century Starfleet.

 

[Christopher]

One thing I gather about Islam is that it tends to be a forgiving faith; most requirements are just "if you can practically manage it" rather than "absolutely without exception." Although, as you say, I'm sure that some are more orthodox and rigid than others. Islam is really such a comparatively easygoing faith in terms of its small number of explicitly defined requirements that there's a ton of room for variation in actual practices.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true of Judaism, although it does seem to have a rather strongly established Orthodox branch.