Is Swine Hallal
-
Peace,
Peace Anwar,
But 55 says "the good things have been made lawful to you" and 2172 says "eat of the good things". If "ALL food is lawful", then why does 55 and 2172 mention "good things"?
Good and bad is relative UNLESS specified with a standard...Or in another way...what is forbidden is specified to you, make up your mind to the rest.
I think you should teach "God" about "Good and bad is relative UNLESS specified with a standard". Who revealed 55 and 2172? Uh uh... not me nope. Did "He" leave out the standard?
Anwar Azim
-
Peace,
I think you should teach "God" about "Good and bad is relative UNLESS specified with a standard". Who revealed 55 and 2172? Uh uh... not me . Did "He" leave out the standard?
I should teach God? Right. Maybe we should all teach ourselves the quran better. There was more to my quote btw.
God didn't leave anything out. Good food is not specified in the quran is it? It's a generalisation that means ALL that God has provided with EXCEPTIONS if you take all the verses in the quran.
But exceptions/restrictions ARE specified in the quran. You want to call them bad thats upto you. Anything can be bad depending on a variety of factors. So are only the restrictions BAD? Can the restrictions be GOOD as well depending on variables/situations/factors? Is all GOOD food, good ALL the time? Can GOOD food be BAD depending on variables/situations/factors? They are what they are, restrictions... God calls them fiqsun or corrupted, and He additionally calls pig meat 'rijsun' or unclean/dirty/filthy.
Forbidden to you is that which is already dead, and the blood, and the meat of pig, and what was sacrificed to other than God, and that which has been strangled, and that which has been beaten to death, and that which has fallen from a height, and that which has been gored, and that which the wild animals have eaten from except what you managed to rescue, and what has been slaughtered on alters, and what you divide by the arrows of chance. This is all vile (fisqun). (53)
Say ?I do not find in what is inspired to me forbidden except that it be already dead, or blood, or the meat of pig, for it is foul (rijsun) ; or what is corruptly (fisqan) dedicated to other than God.? Whoever is forced without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful. (6145)
So if you want to discuss this, please open up a seperate thead about good food and bad food in the quran. Thanks.
Additionally I wanted to add that I see your point and it's quite a good point...It would be interesting to discuss it and see if there is a standard for neutral or that restricted as being just restricted or because of a reason?!?! )
-
arrow
-
PEACE, TANVEER,
You need to answer the following questions which you continue to duck and, unless you do, your's and SC's "additional punishment" conjecture, remains just that...conjecture. Give us the chronology for you conjectures?
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
-
SC,
No ramble at all, but I will make things simpler for you. You need to answer the following questions which you continue to duck and, unless you do, your's and Tanveers's "additional punishment" conjecture, remains just that...conjecture. Give us the chronology for you conjectures?
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
-
PB,
I'm done with you UNLESS you address my post
Let us summarize PB's argument
-
6146 does not say jews were forbidden pig and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
-
In 55 what's good for the jews is good for us and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
-
Therefore we can eat pig and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
To which I replied
- 6146 also does not say those were the ONLY restrictions, but it doesn't matter, because exceptions/restrictions on the believers apply regardless of what the jews are allowed or not allowed. Lahma khinzeerin is the meat of pig.
1a) According to the above 'logic', IF jews were not forbidden pig, they were not forbidden the 11 restrictions/haram (on food) that applies to us too. Does it mean it's okay to eat the 11 haram items in normal times?
-
As seen by the logical continuation of my point number 1, what's good for the people of the book is good for us UNLESS otherwise specified. It's like taking one verse from the quran and saying, thats it. If you just take 2172 it's the same thing as 55 as you won't see the restrictions and it will mean NO restrictions for the believers. The reason why 55 says people of the book, is that people don't start thinking their food is haram because they don't believe in the quran. It doesn't mean you IGNORE the restrictions already placed on the believers in numerous verses. Lahma khinzeerin is the meat of pig.
-
No we can't eat something we have been restricted from, none of the 11 unless forced by necessity etc. If lahma khinzeerin is not pig, (it's pig meat btw ) STOP with the convoluted arguments and address the issue of the word NOT meaning pig OR pig meat. Simple.
-
-
SC,
I know you wish to now cut and run, but it is too late and, unless you do, your's and Tanveers's "additional punishment" conjecture, remains just that...conjecture. When you answer the following two questions put to you, you will at the same time have the answers to your questions.
Give us the chronology for your conjectures?
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
It's time to step up, because if you and tanveer run now, all will know that you are simply running away from having to admit to your error. wink
Looking forward to your reply.
-
-
PB,
It's time you addressed the multiple posts that you have not addressed.
Once you do that you will have the answers to your supposed contradictions and see where your conjecture lies.
All already can make up their own minds as to what they read wink
Let us summarize PB's argument
-
6146 does not say jews were forbidden pig and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
-
In 55 what's good for the jews is good for us and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
-
Therefore we can eat pig and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
To which I replied
- 6146 also does not say those were the ONLY restrictions, but it doesn't matter, because exceptions/restrictions on the believers apply regardless of what the jews were allowed or not allowed. Lahma khinzeerin is the meat of pig.
1a) According to the above 'logic', IF jews were not forbidden pig, they were not forbidden the 11 restrictions/haram (on food) that applies to us too. Does it mean it's okay to eat the 11 haram items in normal times?
-
As seen by the logical continuation of my point number 1, what's good for the people of the book is good for us UNLESS otherwise specified. It's like taking one verse from the quran and saying, thats it. If you just take 2172 it's the same thing as 55 as you won't see the restrictions and it will mean NO restrictions for the believers. The reason why 55 says people of the book, is that people don't start thinking their food is haram because they don't believe in the quran. It doesn't mean you IGNORE the restrictions already placed on the believers in numerous verses. Lahma khinzeerin is the meat of pig.
-
No we can't eat something we have been restricted from, none of the 11 unless forced by necessity etc. If lahma khinzeerin is not pig, (it's pig meat btw ) STOP with the convoluted arguments and address the issue of the word NOT meaning pig OR pig meat. Simple.
-
-
SC,
It is obvious now to ALL that, your's and Tanveer's, "additional punishment" conjecture, is just that...CONJECTURE.
The following questions/statements, are my answer to your questions. So, why are you going to defend your conjecture and resolve the following?
Give us the chronology for your conjectures?
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
In order for your additional punishment conjecture to translate into Quranic fact you must answer them, there is simply no way around this fact. Of course you realize this and that is way you and Tanveer want to now stall, cut and run, because to answer them truthfully, will result in your having to admit that your premises and conclusions are just plain out of touch with Quranic reality.
You can run, I will not pursue you. The members here now know the truth of this subject.
-
-
PB,
The following questions/statements, are my answer to your questions.
No, they are not, as anyone reading my post can see it doesn't matter what the jews were allowed or not allowed. It's a red herring that you threw in.
You can run, I will not pursue you. The members here now know the truth of this subject.
The members can make up their own minds as to what they read.
Reply to my post if you can.
-
SC,
PBMThe following questions/statements, are my answer to your questions.
No, they are not, as anyone reading my post can see it doesn't matter what the jews were allowed or not allowed. It's a red herring that you threw in.
Yes, they are the answers to your questions, and, no, no red herring at all. You and Tanveer assert that the Jews were given additional punishments, these are your words not mine so defend them . If what you assert is true, then you must establish the chronology for that assertion, meaning, when were these punishments added on...before the revealing of Al-Quran or after the revealing of Al-Quran, which is it?
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
In order for your additional punishment conjecture to translate into Quranic fact you must address the above two points, there is simply no way around this fact. You're jammed now, eh?
No more excuses; give us the chronology... if you can. wink
-
-
PB,
Let me acquaint you with the rules of debate. I have a post with certain points. You address those points. You have failed to address those points on multiple occasions all the while insisting on your own.That is NOT debate, that is enforcement.
What the jews were allowed OR not allowed is a RED HERRING because it is independent of your conclusion. In simpler words, whether jews were allowed pig meat OR not, does not mean that we can eat it too. If you are insisting on this point, it has proven to be independent of your conclusion as is mentioned in my posts, hence a red herring. If someone insists on throwing red herrings then that is called OBFUSCATION or hiding behind skirts because your argument is not good enough to stand on its own.
I said in page 1 of this thread
What's the deal then with the jews being allowed/not forbidden lahma khinzeerin and it's thus okay for all of us (in reality it is in blatant contradiction with many verses including 6147) when one does not accept lahma khinzeerin as pig meat? Because even IF lahma khinzeerin is not pig meat it's still HARAM to mankind which makes the former part of the argument inclusive of 6148 fall flat...
The real discussion and the only recourse, instead of focusing on flawed logic, is to PROVE that lahma khinzeerin is NOT pig meat...which is what has been done here many times with no conclusive results...You have insisted on NOT answering this point throughout let alone others. It would be a mistake to go after what the jews were allowed or not allowed as that is IRRELEVANT. The believers have their restrictions/exceptions made clear INDEPENDENT of what the jews were allowed.
Make up a seperate thread for "were these the ONLY restrictions" because it is IRRELEVANT to the topic of can we eat pig meat. Address my posts if you can.
-
Peace Priest Bokmei,
You and Tanveer assert that the Jews were given additional punishments, these are your words not mine
Someone who invents lies/conjectures about Allah can easily invent lies about humans too. I NEVER SAID ANYWHERE THAT JEWS WERE GIVEN ADDITIONAL PUNISHMENTS (which implies that restrictions in 6145 are punishments also). I said that Jews were given ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS as punishment. Not "additional punishments" but "additional restrictions because of punishment".
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
I am not a Jew so it does not matter to me what food is or was forbidden to Jews. All that matters to me is what food is forbidden for me per 6145, and that applies to Jews too, because Jews are part of mankind, and the other thing that matters to me is what food is LAWFUL to Jews per 55.
So all that matters to me is
- "the forbidden food" per 6145,
- "the lawful food for Jews" per 55.
The "forbidden food for Jews" per 6146 is of no concern to me.
Now that you have the replies from me, please answer my questions which have remained unanswered so far
Be it known that it has become blatantly obvious that PB has failed to come up with a reasonable answer to a SINGLE question posed by me or Nadia, time and again, and that he has eluded and/or completely failed to respond to the various points raised in our posts, thereby conclusively proving that he has no argument to support the lies/conjectures he is inventing and ascribing to Allah, and rejecting Allah's clear ayaat, based on his twisted, faulty and flawed logic.
He has persistently CONJECTURED as to what the meaning of "lahma khinzeerin" is, going against Qur'aanic context, logic, Arabic language and Arabic grammar, persistently rejected 6145 that clearly makes "lahma khinzeerin" haram for mankind and Jews (mankind includes Jews), and has persistently excluded Jews from mankind. He has also persistently CONJECTURED as to what exactly Jesus made lawful to Jews in 350.
Unless he answers our posts, and refrains from conjecturing, his case is closed.
-
Given that 6145 lists food made haram for mankind, and that mankind includes Jews, Why do you keep ignoring what Allah EXPLICITLY makes forbidden for Jews in 6145 ?
-
The "AND" at the beginning of 6146 clearly shows that 6146 is a CONTINUATION of 6145, so you cannot isolate 6146 from 6145. Why do you keep ignoring the "AND" at the beginning of 6146 and keep isolating 6146 from 6145 ? Also as Nadia pointed out, the phrase "that is a punishment for their rebellion" in 6146 also clearly shows that 6146 is a CONTINUATION of 6145, because the restrictions in 6146 are IN ADDITION TO the restrictions in 6145 for Jews. Do you mean to say that the foods mentioned in 6146 are the ONLY foods made haram for Jews ? So before their punishment ALL food was halal to them ?
Why do you keep rejecting parts of the word of Allah (e.g. 6145) ?
1338 And those to whom We have previously given the Scripture rejoice at what has been sent down to you, but there are some of the groups that reject parts of it.
- Given that Allah, in 6146, does not forbid the Jews to eat dead meat, blood, lahma khinzeerin, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah", hence, according to your twisted logic it was lawful to them, and ayat 55 states that their food and our food are halal for each other, dead meat, blood, lahma khinzeerin, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah", then has to be halal for mankind. But then that would contradict 6145 where Allah has clearly made dead meat, blood, lahma khinzeerin and "what is dedicated to other than Allah" HARAM FOR MANKIND, WHICH INCLUDES JEWS. How will you explain that ?
Additional question for you
- Given that "rijsun" is the word used by Allah in 6145 to mean "bad/unclean/dirty/filthy", how can you say that "khinzeerin" used in the same ayat is also an adjective of "lahma" meaning the same as "rijsun". It is like saying
"made haram is meat that is bad/dirty ("khinzeerin"), because it is bad/dirty" (khinzeerin as adjective according to your conjecture)
which makes no sense and it is redundant to use 2 adjectives meaning the same, for the same noun; instead
"made haram is meat of pig ("khinzeerin"), because it is bad/dirty" (khinzeerin as noun)
makes perfect sense.
Give me ONE example from Qur'aan where Allah has used 2 adjectives in a row, meaning the same, for the same noun.
Looking forward to your reply to my questions, as well as Nadia's questions that you rudely, and disrespectfully, have not answered so far.
-
-
SaLaM
And mine either ( . Dont make me do half your word PB. But since im SUCH A NICE GUY, i will http//www.geocities.com/bigjaxal/s1.gif
The arabic word for Pig is .................
The arabic word for Unclean is .................There. All you have to do now is just fill in the blanks. Easy init?
-
Salaam all,
Well it seems like PB is out on deep water now
I have read over and over again 6145-146 in Quran and I cannot understand it in another way that it might have been so that the jews were allowed to eat pig.But when this verse came they shouldn't eat pig if they concider themselves as truebelievers.
But what have this to do with us who concider us believers?
We don't care what the jews were doing and what they were eating, because we must be aware what to do now when we are living.
Nearly all knows that pork isn't healthy so why make it halal?
Are you PB longing for a porkchop?
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Salaam all,
If you all look into the verse 55 Today, the good things have been made lawful to you, and the food of those who have been given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them........
You can see that here must pork have been forbidden because otherwise we cannot eat the food of the people of the Scripture, right.
We shouldn't play with the word of God and PB what are you trying to prove here?
That Quran is wrong or what?
Beware of the punishments from God the Almighty!
Peace
Sis Majidah -
SC,
Let me acquaint you with the rules of debate.
Thanks.
What the jews were allowed OR not allowed is a RED HERRING because it is independent of your conclusion. In simpler words, whether jews were allowed pig meat OR not, does not mean that we can eat it too.
LOL! does not matter?! This is patently crazy and does noting to defend your assertion! O.k., let's say that the Jews, a People of the Book , were allowed to eat pig. With that being the case, then per ayat ayat 55, pig is halal for so-called muslims to eat. Further, if the Jews were allowed to eat pig and you reject that, then, you are defiance of ayat 55
55 This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them....
55 This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them.
If you are insisting on this point, it has proven to be independent of your conclusion as is mentioned in my posts, hence a red herring. If someone insists on throwing red herrings then that is called OBFUSCATION or hiding behind skirts because your argument is not good enough to stand on its own.
LOL! Oh stop, will you. You've proved nothing and my arguments are based squarely on Quranic facts and this is why you and Tanveer, will not answer the following
You and Tanveer assert that the Jews were given "ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS as punishment", these are your words not mine so defend them. If what you assert is true, then you must establish the chronology for that assertion, meaning, when were these additional restrictions as punishments added on...before the revealing of Al-Quran or after the revealing of Al-Quran, which is it? You cannot escape the necessity for establishing a choronology, unless, you just insist on ignoring the following ayat
350 "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
Please, tell us...when did Jesus fulfill this part of his mission...before or after the coming of Al-Quran?
Stop with the excuse making, going off on tangents, and otherwise stalling, and address the following
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
In order for your ..."ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS as punishment" conjecture to translate into Quranic fact, you must address the above two points, there is simply no way around this fact. You're jammed now, eh?
-
-
PEACE, TANVEER,
Not "additional punishments" but "additional restrictions because of punishment".
My God, what double talk. Are you really getting this desperate?
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
I am not a Jew so it does not matter to me what food is or was forbidden to Jews. All that matters to me is what food is forbidden for me per 6145, and that applies to Jews too, because Jews are part of mankind, and the other thing that matters to me is what food is LAWFUL to Jews per 55.
So all that matters to me is
- "the forbidden food" per 6145,
- "the lawful food for Jews" per 55.
The "forbidden food for Jews" per 6146 is of no concern to me.
Now that you have the replies from me, please answer my questions which have remained unanswered so far
You've not address my question concerning the chronology of events. This was my reply to SC, please address the chronology.
SC What the jews were allowed OR not allowed is a RED HERRING because it is independent of your conclusion. In simpler words, whether jews were allowed pig meat OR not, does not mean that we can eat it too.
TANVEER I am not a Jew so it does not matter to me what food is or was forbidden to Jews. All that matters to me is what food is forbidden for me per 6145, and that applies to Jews too, because Jews are part of mankind, and the other thing that matters to me is what food is LAWFUL to Jews per 55.
LOL! does not matter?! This is patently crazy and does noting to defend your assertion! O.k., let's say that the Jews, a People of the Book , were allowed to eat pig. With that being the case, then per ayat ayat 55, pig is halal for so-called muslims to eat as well! Further, if the Jews were allowed to eat pig and you reject this, then, you are defiance of ayat 55
55 This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them....
You and SC, assert that the Jews were given "ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS as punishment". If what you assert is true, then you must establish the chronology for that assertion, meaning, when were these additional restrictions as punishments added on...before the revealing of Al-Quran or after the revealing of Al-Quran, which is it? You cannot escape the necessity for establishing a choronology, unless, you just insist on ignoring the following ayat
350 "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
Please, tell us...when did Jesus fulfill this part of his mission...before or after the coming of Al-Quran?
Stop with the excuse making, going off on tangents, and otherwise stalling, and address the following
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
In order for your ..."ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS as punishment" conjecture to translate into Quranic fact, you must address the above two points, there is simply no way around this fact.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
-
PEACE, TO ALL,
If you all look into the verse 55 Today, the good things have been made lawful to you, and the food of those who have been given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them........
You can see that here must pork have been forbidden because otherwise we cannot eat the food of the people of the Scripture, right.
Well, if you are correct Sweden, then post the verses where pig was prohibited to the People of the Book i.e. Jews and Christians.
We shouldn't play with the word of God and PB what are you trying to prove here?
I'm not playing, I assure you of that.
That Quran is wrong or what?
No, but yours and the some of the others translations are wrong.
Beware of the punishments from God the Almighty!
Oh, I am...are you? I hope you will avail yourself of your own advice and make certain that you are in compliance of ayats 733 and 1736
733 Say the things that my Lord hath indeed forbidden are shameful deeds...and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge.
1736 And pursue not that of which you have no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning).
Well it seems like PB is out on deep water now
On the contray, it is Sc, Tanveer, who are out in deep water and that is why they refuse to address the following
You and Tanveer assert that the Jews were given "ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS as punishment", these are your words not mine so defend them. If what you assert is true, then you must establish the chronology for that assertion, meaning, when were these additional restrictions as punishments added on...before the revealing of Al-Quran or after the revealing of Al-Quran, which is it? You cannot escape the necessity for establishing a choronology, unless, you just insist on ignoring the following ayat
350 "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
Please, tell us...when did Jesus fulfill this part of his mission...before or after the coming of Al-Quran?
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
I have read over and over again 6145-146 in Quran and I cannot understand it in another way that it might have been so that the jews were allowed to eat pig.But when this verse came they shouldn't eat pig if they concider themselves as true believers. Nearly all knows that pork isn't healthy so why make it halal?[/
The problem you, Sc, and Tanveer have is this. Ayat 146, explicitly states that, the only category of animals Allah made haram for Jews to eat was...animals with claws. Do you know of any pigs with claws? This being the case then
-
it is clear that Jews were never forbidden to eat pig in the first place!
-
If pig, which you claim is "unhealthy" and others claim is dirty/foul, and is now haram for mankind and the Jews, why then did Allah allow righteous people i.e. Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph and ALL of their people...to eat it? If the pig is unhealthy/dirty/foul at the time of the revealing of ayat 6145, then it would have had to have been unhealthy/dirty/foul long before that. So, were these prior people forbidden to eat pig? Yes or no? Do you know?
We don't care what the jews were doing and what they were eating, because we must be aware what to do now when we are living.
You HAVE to care what Jews were doing or not doing, at least, in regard to food, because Allah in ayat 55 refers us back to them concerning food. What are you talking about?!
-