Br Pheonix,
I would want to answer that or you may end up believing that since there is no ayah , it is permissible to hunt.
pheonix wrote:
bring one Ayah(no Hadith) whick explictly mention(without tafseer) that huting animals other than for food is prohibited in the Quran.
Yes, there is no ayah explicitly mentioning that hunting for sport is prohibited except if done for food.
However, there exists an ayah that commands us to obey the Prophet (pbuh).
And as you may be aware, hunting for sport is prohibited as per the Prophet (pbuh).
We try to follow the sunnah as much as it is possible for us to do so. In fact, we follow very little .Now, one can understand if is not followed by people like you and me but the same cannot be said for a religious/spiritual leader. He is least likely to not follow the Prophet's (pbuh) sayings. He is liable and bound to follow everything that is mentioned in the sunnah and for this reason he cannot endorse such an act.
As far as the Qur'an is concerned, it is not explicitly mentioned that hunting is prohibited, but at the same time, it is not explicitly mentioned that it is permitted.
Please understand that not everything is explicitly mentioned in the Holy Qur'an.
We need to unravel the natural implications of a verse.
Only certain acts that are really required of a Muslim are mentioned explicitly.
Example, eating of pork is strictly prohibited and therefore explicitly mentioned (we have ayah for this).
Shirk is explicitly mentioned. etc.
No explicit mention does not imply that it is permitted.
You could also look at it this way: Elephant is not explicitly mentioned as haram but then it is neither mentioned as halal. It is Makrooh (discouraged).
The verse that you have mentioned in your post above , considers lawful food (halal food). So it can be said that an elephant is not included in this verse.
Since hunting is permitted only for a just cause (food) and because an elephant is not amongst lawful food, it would imply that it was hunted for a purpose other than food.
Somebody told me that "may be he (Maula) himself would not have consumed it but he would have distributed its meat to other poor people, so the purpose of hunting was for food, nothing bad about it". Don't you think that is lame? In my opinion, it would have been a more just cause if the money spent on hunting as well as the fine paid later was utilized for the poor or distributed to them directly.The amount spent on hunting was not less than $30k.
(Also, who eats an elephant anyway!)
Also, you must be aware that the species of elephant that is reported to have been hunted is one of the most endangered species. Hunting in that case becomes forbidden (both legally and religiously) as it would cause the species to become extinct.
I am yet to see a pic where Maula poses with the elephant that was hunted (at least I haven't seen it as yet).
The reason is that, not only is the act legally prohibited but also that it is religiously prohibited.
May be, a religious leader claiming to become the next Dai, may not want to be seen doing activities that are religiously prohibited.
