So this has long been my question growing up as a Muslim. In the beginning, of course, I don’t question why pigs were considered haram. Then I reach early adolescence and start questioning the reasons behind why they were prohibited. The explanation that I received was that back in the biblical times, they had no refrigerators and so pigs’ meat would go bad faster than other meats. I found this explanation to be hilarious because why then would they still be prohibited today? The answer to that was because following the tradition was all that matters — another explanation that I just can’t accept.
This semester I am taking Intro to Anthropology and we did a little section on religion and covered the Book of Leviticus, the section where they discussed the different dietary prohibitions. In Mary Douglas’ Purity and Danger, she covered a section on the Abominations of Leviticus and I found this section very informative! Douglas’ explanation of why Muslims and Jews consider pigs as unclean really opened up my eyes to understanding the reasons behind the prohibitions. For shorter explanation, I will just copy an excerpt from my textbook discussion this section of Douglas’ book:
“The Abomination of Leviticus” (Cultural Anthropology: A Perspective on the Human Condition, Emily Schultz, Robert Lavenda)
Consider the prohibition against eating pork. For Jews and Muslims, pork is inedible, culturally speaking. According to Mary Douglas (1996), this has nothing to do with ecological problems associated with pig raising in southwestern Asia nor with defects in the digestive systems of Jews or Muslims. Douglas analyzed the Jewish dietary prohibitions detailed in the biblical Book of Leviticus. She argues that certain animals were prohibited as food because something about them violated the prototypes for edibility recognized in ancient Hebrew culture.
Prototypically “clean” land animals were supposed to have four legs and cloven hooves and to chew the cud; pigs were an “abomination” because they were four legged, cloven-hoofed beasts that did not chew the cud. “Clean” beasts of the air were supposed to have feathers and to fly with wings; therefore, hopping insects were “unclean” because they had six legs, neither walked nor flew, and lacked feathers. “Clean” water animals were supposed to have fins and scales; shrimp were forbidden because, although they lived in the sea, they lacked fins and scales.
By itself, Douglas argues, a prohibition against eating pork is meaningless and appears irrational. However, when the prohibition against pork is taken together with other dietary prohibitions in Leviticus, and when these are compared with the foods that were permitted, a pattern emerges. Douglas and Isherwood write, “Goods assembled together in ownership make physical, visible statements about the hierarchy of values to which their chooser subscribes” (1979, 5). Thus, Jews who consume only “clean” foods that meet the ritual requirements laid down by their tradition are doing more than procuring the means to satisfy their hunger; they are also making a social declaration of solidarity with their religious community, and the care with which they adhere to the dietary laws is a measure of their commitment. Their need for food is being met, but selectively, and the selection they make carries a social message.
Basically, it’s not just the rules that the people are following but what it means to follow the rules. They may seem irrational and meaningless, but the whole point to follow the different rules is to be “holy,” and not be different. Basically, by following the rules, they are sending a message that they are able to make choices and show their commitment to the religion. So in the end, basically, pigs are unholy because the bible said so.
Well it’s a much better explanation than what I have understood all these years. I certainly appreciate the information, but whether or not I will return to Islam will remain a question.

