Both the Quran and the Bible prohibit eating pork, with the Old Testament (e.g., Leviticus 11:7-8) and Quran (e.g., Surah 2:173) labelling it as “unclean”. This has led to speculation about whether health risks, like parasites, and poor animal husbandry practices in ancient times were factors.
Trichinosis, caused by the Trichinella parasite, can be fatal if untreated and was likely known in antiquity, as evidenced by larvae found on Egyptian mummies. Given limited cooking and hygiene practices, ancient communities may have associated pork consumption with health issues, potentially influencing the prohibition. Poor animal husbandry, where pigs often ate scavenged food, could have increased disease risk, aligning with the texts’ emphasis on purity.
However, the texts present the prohibition as a divine command, not explicitly citing health. In the Old Testament, it’s part of Mosaic law to set Jews apart, while in the Quran, it’s obedience to God. Some scholars, like Maimonides, suggest health benefits were secondary.
Both the Quran and the Old Testament explicitly prohibit the consumption of pork, but the reasons and contexts differ. The Old Testament lists pigs as unclean and forbids their meat and even contact with their carcasses. This was part of the Mosaic law, given to the Israelites around 1500-1000 BCE, likely to distinguish them from neighboring cultures and possibly for health reasons, though the texts do not specify.
In contrast, the Quran, revealed in the 7th century CE, prohibits pork in several verses, including Surah 2:173, Surah 5:3, and Surah 6:145, labeling it as “unclean” or “impure”. Islamic teachings emphasise obedience to God’s command, with no explicit health rationale provided in the text.
The prohibition may stem from the observed effects of a potentially lethal parasite and poor animal husbandry. Trichinosis, caused by the Trichinella parasite, is a key candidate. This disease, spread through consuming undercooked pork containing larvae, can lead to severe muscle pain, weakness, and even death if untreated. Historical evidence, such as parasite larvae found on Egyptian mummies, indicates trichinosis was known in antiquity. link
In the Old Testament era, poor animal husbandry meant pigs, often scavengers, were more prone to carrying diseases. Similarly, in the 7th-century Arabian context of the Quran, pork consumption could have posed health risks, especially with limited knowledge of parasites.
Some argue the prohibition was primarily about health, citing trichinosis and other diseases, while others suggest ecological and economic factors, such as pigs’ unsuitability in arid Middle Eastern climates. However, the texts themselves do not cite health as the primary reason, focusing instead on religious purity.
In Judaism, some interpretations list prohibition as a law whose reason is unknown, suggesting it may transcend health. In Islam, while health benefits are acknowledged, the primary reason is obedience to God, with exceptions allowed in necessity (e.g., starvation), as noted in Surah 2:173.
| Religion | Prohibition Basis | Health Influence | Other Factors |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judaism/Old Testament | Mosaic law, pig is “unclean” | Likely influenced by trichinosis risk | Cultural identity, separation from pagans |
| Islam | Quran, “unclean,” divine command | Possible secondary health benefit | Spiritual purity, obedience to God |
The prohibition of pork in the Quran and the Old Testament of the Bible likely had health-related influences, such as the risk of trichinosis and poor animal husbandry, but the texts present it as a divine command. Modern research supports health risks as a contributing factor, though debate continues on whether this was the primary intent. The evidence leans toward health being secondary to religious and cultural reasons, with ongoing discussion in scholarly circles.
In the New Testament, Jesus is quoted in Mark 7:18-19 saying “And he saith to them: So are you also without knowledge? Understand you not that every thing from without entering into a man cannot defile him: Because it entereth not into his heart but goeth into his belly and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats?”.
Author’s note: The purpose of this article is scholarly analysis rather than criticism.