Is Swine Hallal
-
SaLaM PB
Brother, why are ignoring my very simple question? If you dont know the answer, then say it so we can help you. How can you be making any arguments when you dont even know the correct words for pig and unclean. Atleast SM knows what she is talking about. So maybe YOU should be paying attention to verse 7.33 instead of SM http//www.geocities.com/bigjaxal/s1.gif
-
Salaam PB,
You really want to have that porkchop!?
So go and eat it we will not stop you if you are so blind.
But don't come here and play God!
Peace
Sis Majidah
-
Peace,
You really want to have that porkchop!?
So go and eat it we will not stop you if you are so blind.
But don't come here and play God!
Please refrain from such revolting remarks and keep to the discussion at hand. I believe PB has a point to which I am studying and understanding its relevancy from all angles. Be patient and give yourself time and thought.
-
Salaam Danish,
PB doesn't want to listen to someone else he just keep on to his own opinions and that is not a fair debate.
Everyone can see that God has forbidden us to eat pork, do you think God is playing with us!?
I mean only because there is a verse telling us that all good food is allowed for both jews and the rest of the mankind it doesn't lead us to that conclusions that pork is allowed.
He is walking in circles with his claims.
I even don't know if the guy is muslim or not, maybe he is a jew after all.
Hey, this is serious man he is trying to make swine halal!!!!!
And I can clearly say that verse 6145-146 is for all true believers so the jews should eat like us and not follow those old restrictions.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Peace Sweden Majidah,
I agree with Danish. Your comments were completely out of line. Either refute the argument or bow out of the debate.
You really want to have that porkchop!?
So go and eat it we will not stop you if you are so blind.
But don't come here and play GodPeace,
Tay -
salaam Tay,
I don't regret what I have said because I use to hold what I preach )
But I can leave if you wish that so very much, i will not disturb you sensitive Americans lol
BYEEEEEE
Sis Majidah
-
Peace Sis Majidah,
He is walking in circles with his claims.
I even don't know if the guy is muslim or not, maybe he is a jew after all.
Hey, this is serious man he is trying to make swine halal!!!!!No one can force you to believe unless you start believing. So take it easy and relax. )>-
Anwar Azim
-
PB,
LOL! does not matter?! This is patently crazy and does noting to defend your assertion!
LOL! If you say so, did you address and refute any of my points in the post? No you didn't.
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....
No one is in defiance of anything except those who take one part of the quran and reject and/or ignore the rest.
Let me make it very simple and concise
IF the jews were NOT forbidden swine, you still can't eat it because you can't take one verse out of context and ignore the restrictions that tell you what the lawful/good/unrestricted food is. The restrictions are what make the good/lawful/unrestricted food known to us, as ALL of the good/lawful/unrestricted foods are NOT specified/named in the quran, but the restrictions ARE. Thus anything NOT restricted is lawful = good, OR as in 55, "This day are things Not Restricted (Good) made lawful to you".
An illustration would be
51 O you who believe, you shall fulfill your covenants. Permitted for you to eat are the livestock, except those specifically prohibited herein. You shall not permit hunting throughout Hajj pilgrimage. GOD decrees whatever He wills.
ALL livestock = lawful = good, UNLESS Restricted/prohibited/haram.
An illustration would be
- O you who believe, eat of the good things We have provided for you, and be thankful to God; if it is Him you serve.
One verse taken tells us of NO restrictions. If we didn't read anything else it would tell us of no restrictions but to eat of the good things which one could assume meant, make up our own mind regarding what is good stuff out of everything. This is NOT the case, since if one reads other verses in the quran, one would realise that good is everything lawful OR NOT restricted. Therefore, one could tell the good/lawful/unrestricted food by looking at the restrictions.
With this in mind, we look at 55, it says ALL the good/unrestricted things are made lawful to you and in the same verse 'the food of the people of the book is lawful to us and ours to them'. The good/lawful things are the things which are NOT restricted. It can't get any more obvious than that.
55
- ALL good/unrestricted food is made lawful to us. (Good food = Lawful food = Not Restricted food)
- Food of the people of the book is lawful to us UNLESS restricted.
- You can't take the statement 'the food of the people of the book is lawful to us and ours to them' out of context and say huzzah! No restrictions, because in the same verse we have point 1).
3a) If this statement is taken out of context and meant to assume that because pig meat is not mentioned for people of the book, therefore we can eat it, then what about the restrictions of pig meat already on us AND the other 10 restrictions along with it? Can we eat dead meat too? After all they are not mentioned for the 'people of the book' as being haram. roll
So even IF the jews were allowed pig OR the christians were allowed pig you can't eat it because it comes under the restricted category of food. All good food = lawful food = unrestricted food.
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
LOL! Oh stop, will you giggle... You feel the need to boost your morale everytime you post apparently...some sort of war cry is it? Before whining about why oh why won't you answer my questions, take a look at your own track record for ignoring posts...it's quite an impressive one.
You and Tanveer assert that the Jews were given "ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS as punishment", these are your words not mine so defend them.
What a lovely statement here...YOU are the one who claims the they were the ONLY restrictions further reduced with NO ayat to back it up. Can you defend your claim? After all, your claim came first.
Instead of defending your own stance you start attacking others in the hope that no one will see your own position. We did refute your claim regarding ONLY restrictions, and you still haven't managed to refute ours, let alone answer to multiple posts...instead you magically come up with more questions to throw the scent off...in a different direction, aka RED HERRINGS...
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 what we assert is not true refute the points presented in our multiple posts instead of concocting what you think we should do in order to defend them, they are nothing but RED HERRINGS...God tells us in the quran that these additional restrictions were placed on them in the past...and unless you can give us the ayat where Jesus uses his authority and what he uses it on, STOP conjecturing about what Jesus did OR did NOT do...please post the ayat, thanks!
Stop with the excuse making, going off on tangents, and otherwise stalling, and address the following
Do you practice what you preach? If you do, then address the multiple posts that you have run away from, Thanks!
edited to add
-
Salaam Savage Carrot,
Good girl!
I think you have said it all, so now we have to wait and see what excuses he comes up with!
I don't like when people take verses out of context they are supposed to be read together, but PB like to do this.
I still really wonder why he is doing this!?
Peace
Sis Majidah -
SC,
51 O you who believe, you shall fulfill your covenants. Permitted for you to eat are the livestock, except those specifically prohibited herein. You shall not permit hunting throughout Hajj pilgrimage. GOD decrees whatever He wills.
ALL livestock = lawful = good, UNLESS Restricted/prohibited/haram.
An illustration would be
51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you, not violating the prohibition against game when you are entering upon the performance of the pilgrimage; surely Allah orders what He desires.
51 Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo awfoo bilAAuqoodi ohillat lakum baheematu alanAAami illa ma yutla AAalaykum ghayra muhillee assaydi waantum hurumun inna Allaha yahkumu ma yureed
Main Entry BAHIMATUN beast. any quadruped, even if in the water. Bahimat Al-Anam. Quadrupeds which belong to the class of cattle or which resemble cattle or any beast which resembles domesticated cattle in so far as it feeds on plants and is not a beast of prey. The Dictionary of the Holy Quran, by Omar Abdul Mannan
Main Entry QUADRUPED an animal having four feet.
Main Entry CATTLE domesticated quadrupeds held as property or raised for use.
The carnivores are quadrupeds with keen eyesight and sense of smell. They possess not only the necessary speed to overtake their prey but they also have sharp, retractable claws which enables them to pull their victims to the ground and hold them fast. The anatomy of natural omnivores, such as the bear or raccoon, is almost identical, except they possess a set of molars to chew the plant foods that they eat.
Herbivorous creatures such as sheep and cattle have a digestive tract 30 times the length of their bodies; they have several stomachs, which allows them to break down cellulose--something humans are unable to do. This is why we can't graze or live on grass. The urine and saliva of the herbivores are alkaline, and their saliva contains ptyalin for the predigestion of starches. The frugivores (gorillas, chimpanzees and other primates) have intestinal tracts twelve times the length of the body, clawless hands and alkaline urine and saliva. Their diet is mostly vegetarian, occassionally supplemented with carrion, insects, etc...
http//64.233.161.104/search?q=cacheI56rMD6knagJwww.all-creatures.org/murti/polveg-05.html+do+quadrupeds+have+claws&hl=en
Well, it looks like quadrupeds don't have claws, eh?, hence, not forbidden to the Jews. Given the above ayat and definitions then, pigs, come under the class of lawful animal--quadrupeds.
Let me make it very simple and concise
IF the jews were NOT forbidden swine, you still can't eat it because you can't take one verse out of context and ignore the restrictions that tell you what the lawful/good/unrestricted food is.
51 O ye who believe! fulfil (all) obligations. Lawful unto you (for food) are all four-footed animals, with the exceptions named But animals of the chase are forbidden while ye are in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb for Allah doth command according to His will and plan.
53 Forbidden to you (for food) are dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine,
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.
Well, if you want to agree that the Jews were not forbidden to eat pig, you still have a major problem, to wit Ayat 55 tells us that...the food of the people of the Book is lawful to us and vice versa. Well, with this in mind then, what does Al-Quran tell us about lawful food and lawful food of the Jews? Simply this, Allah, has made quadrupeds lawful for all to eat. The pig is, without doubt,...a quadruped and, per ayat 6146, is also clawless, hence, the Jews, were never forbidden, by Allah anyway, to eat it.
Now, given that Allah says their food is halal to us and given that the clawless quarduped pig was not haram for them, if khinzerin means pig, then ayats 51 and 53, are in contradiction with 55. Remember this as well, Allah, in regard to the haram food of Jews says..."haram for them were the animals with claws". Allah, makes haram an entire category of animals. If pig is haram for us to eat, why then, did Allah simply not say...the pig is forbidden to eat, period? Why only the lahma/flesh? Ayat 51, if translated properly, says
51 O ye who believe! fulfil (all) obligations. Lawful unto you (for food) are ALL four-footed animals, with the exceptions named But animals of the chase are forbidden while ye are in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb for Allah doth command according to His will and plan.
53 Forbidden to you (for food) are dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine...
Now, ALL four-footed animals are halal, except with the exceptions named The ayat, as you can see, makes no mention of...PARTS of the four-footed animal being haram, but the four-footed quadruped/animal(s) in total being haram. Now, the question becomes...what four footed animal(s)/quadruped(s) are not halal? Keep in mind that, ayat 53 says LAHMA KHINZERIN/THE FLESH OF SWINE. Flesh of pig, as you agreed to earlier, is a PARTICULAR PART of the pig, hence, the animal in total cannot be haram. If the animal is not haram in total, then 53 contradicts 51
I'm still waiting for a clear and coherent Quranic explanation from you and Tanveer on 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.
-
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?
Looking forward to your reply.
-
-
PEACE, DANISH,
Thanks for addressing SM's, obnoxious comments.
I believe PB has a point to which I am studying and understanding its relevancy from all angles. Be patient and give yourself time and thought.
It goes without saying that, you possess great skill for articulation, coherency, summary and organization. With this acknowledged, I'm looking forward to, pro OR con, your conclusions of this debate.
Peace.
-
PEACE, TAY and ANWAR,
Thanks to you both for your comments regarding SM.
Btw, are you guys going to remain onlookers in this debate or are you going to jump in...one way or the other?
Peace.
-
PB,
Well, it looks like quadrupeds don't have claws, eh?, hence, not forbidden to the Jews. Given the above ayat and definitions then, pigs, come under the class of lawful animal--quadrupeds.
What was my point in the post above good priest? Was I telling you that quadrupeds have CLAWS?!?!? Was I telling you that pigs have CLAWS? lol
Perhaps you would like to look at my post again? In case it was NOT clear, it was an illustration of a rule which is 'all food lawful unless prohibited by restrictions'. These restrictions then specify what is in particular prohibited.
Well, if you want to agree that the Jews were not forbidden to eat pig, you still have a major problem, to wit Ayat 55 tells us that...the food of the people of the Book is lawful to us and vice versa. Well, with this in mind then, what does Al-Quran tell us about lawful food and lawful food of the Jews? Simply this, Allah, has made quadrupeds lawful for all to eat. The pig is, without doubt,...a quadruped and, per ayat 6146, is also clawless, hence, the Jews, were never forbidden, by Allah anyway, to eat it.
Already explained time and time again, do you even read my posts? Or is it a 'cursory examination'?
Now, given that Allah says their food is halal to us and given that the clawless quarduped pig was not haram for them, if khinzerin means pig, then ayats 51 and 53, are in contradiction with 55. Remember this as well, Allah, in regard to the haram food of Jews says..."haram for them were the animals with claws". Allah, makes haram an entire category of animals. If pig is haram for us to eat, why then, did Allah simply not say...the pig is forbidden to eat, period?
Please respond to the points in my post and in answer to the question italized, Allah wanted to forbid the meat of pig obviously roll
Now, ALL four-footed animals are halal, except with the exceptions named The ayat, as you can see, makes no mention of...PARTS of the four-footed animal being haram, but the four-footed quadruped/animal(s) in total being haram. Now, the question becomes...what four footed animal(s)/quadruped(s) are not halal? Keep in mind that, ayat 53 says LAHMA KHINZERIN/THE FLESH OF SWINE. Flesh of pig, as you agreed to earlier, is a PARTICULAR PART of the pig, hence, the animal in total cannot be haram. If the animal is not haram in total, then 53 contradicts 51
51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you,
Quadrupeds are lawful except that which is recited to you. Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions. The restrictions specify what is in particular prohibited.
I'm still waiting for a clear and coherent Quranic explanation from you and Tanveer on the following
I'm still waiting for the rebuttal to my posts.
-
SaLaM Danish and Tay
SwedenMajidah is on the spot here. That is exactly what he is doing. He is completely ignorant of the fact that verse 2.173 is prohibiting pig to all man kind. I asked him for his source and he gives me a dictonary that i cant even find online. He is simply arguing for the sake of arguing. And what SM said about him i agree with her. This WAS an interesting thread. Now its entertainment where PB is the star of the hour http//www.geocities.com/bigjaxal/s1.gif
-
Peace all,
To all, let's stop with the disputes. PB has presented an argument, let's discuss it? We cannot seriously know why anyone is doing what they do, so let's leave aside why. He has a right to present his argument, we all do. What we do next is discuss it, and see if that leads to a satisfactory conclusion. )
-
SC,
Let's step back for a moment and agree on a couple of things
-
given the definition of quadruped and ayat 6146, it is clear the Jews were not forbidden to eat pig nor was humanity. Agreed?
-
the pig, as a quadruped, is halal for mankind, except--its skin/flesh/lahma. Agreed?
Perhaps you would like to look at my post again? In case it was NOT clear, it was an illustration of a rule which is 'all food lawful unless prohibited by restrictions'. These restrictions then specify what is in particular prohibited...
You did not answer the following questions, please do so.
Now, given that Allah says the food of the People of the Book is halal for us and given that the clawless quarduped pig was not haram for them, if khinzerin means pig, then ayats 51 and 53, are in contradiction with 55. Remember this as well, Allah, in regard to the haram food of Jews says..."haram for them were the animals with claws". Allah, makes haram an entire category of animals (quadrupeds with claws.).
-
If pig, as a quadruped, is haram for us to eat, why, then, did Allah simply not say...the pig, in its entirety, is forbidden to eat, and be done with it?
-
If Allah meant only for us to abstain from the "flesh of the "pig", ostensibly per ayat 53, why, then, does ayat 51 say The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...? Ayat 51 is speaking of a whole animal/quadruped, while ayat 53, is referring to a particular part of an quadruped. This is an obvious discrepancy. You must clear this up, as it is absolutely pertinent to your assertion.
-
It is apparent now that the quadruped--the pig was never haram for the Jews nor for Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Israel, Joseph and all of their peoples, as well as, humanity at large. This being the case, why, all of a sudden, is the pig now dirty, filthy, foul, haram quadruped? Why would Allah allow all of those righteous Messengers, Prophets, and righteous people, for all of those ages, eat a dirty, filthy, foul animal? If the pig as a whole or its flesh in particular, was unclean at the time of the Last Messenger, then it must have been unclean before his time as well. You must answer this question.
Remeber this as well the foods made haram to the Jews, were not because these animals and/or its parts were inherently not good for them, they were made haram as a punishment. Nowhere does Allah arbitrarily restrict any food stuff from mankind nor has He created any animal and said..."do not eat this animal, because it is by its nature it is haram for you".
- What quadrupeds are recited to us which are not allowed to us? Ayat 51, if translated correctly, says quadrupeds, plural, and not quadruped singular, hence, the pig, must not be the only disallowed quadruped. What quadrupeds is this ayat referring to? You must clear this up, as it is absolutely pertinent to your assertion.
51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...
- You said "Quadrupeds are lawful except that which is recited to you. Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions. The restrictions specify what is in particular prohibited." In the above ayat, Allah, uses the term quadruped as a whole. He makes no such statement in ayat 51 that He restricted any part of any quadruped. Your response is nothing less that an extrapolation.
Now, ALL four-footed animals are halal, except with the exceptions named The ayat, as you can see, makes no mention of...PARTS of the four-footed animal being haram, but the four-footed quadruped/animal(s) in total being haram. Now, the question becomes...what four footed animal(s)/quadruped(s) are not halal? Keep in mind that, ayat 53 says LAHMA KHINZERIN/THE FLESH OF SWINE. Flesh of pig, as you agreed to earlier, is a PARTICULAR PART of the pig, hence, the animal in total cannot be haram. If the animal is not haram in total, then 53 contradicts 51
You've got alot of clearing up to do. Why do you continue to skip question #3? Please answer it and the others.
-
-
Peace All,
Sweden Majidah, you stated
But I can leave if you wish that so very much, i will not disturb you sensitive Americans
It is not my place to tell anyone to stay or leave, nor was that my intention. What I wish is for folks, including yourself, to cease with the personal insults and the out of line comments and stick to debating. You can do whatever you want to do. But as your Muslim brother, I feel it is my responsibility to let you know when I think you're out of line. Take it as you will.
Jaxal, you stated
SwedenMajidah is on the spot here. That is exactly what he is doing. He is completely ignorant of the fact that verse 2.173 is prohibiting pig to all man kind. I asked him for his source and he gives me a dictonary that i cant even find online. He is simply arguing for the sake of arguing. And what SM said about him i agree with her. This WAS an interesting thread. Now its entertainment where PB is the star of the hour
Jax, you can agree with whomever you choose. Personally, I'm staying out of this debate. But I will not stand by and watch silently when someone accuses someone else of not being a muslim and "playing God".
I'm sorry if that's ok with you. It's not ok with me.Priest, I echo Danish's comments in that I am still on the fence regarding this issue.
Nadia, you stated
To all, let's stop with the disputes. PB has presented an argument, let's discuss it? We cannot seriously know why anyone is doing what they do, so let's leave aside why. He has a right to present his argument, we all do. What we do next is discuss it, and see if that leads to a satisfactory conclusion.
Beautifully said! wink
Peace,
Tay -
Peace PRIEST_BOKMEI and others,
It goes without saying that, you possess great skill for articulation, coherency, summary and organization. With this acknowledged, I'm looking forward to, pro OR con, your conclusions of this debate.
Thanks for the compliments there, Priest, in good faith. With strong arguments presented by Nadia, Tanveer and ofcouse yourself on the other side, I?m neither pro nor con at this moment. I shall render my thoughts, once I grasp the contextual understanding of the words khanzeer and kirada to mean other than pigs and apes applicable to Quranic verses and via ongoing discussions. Perhaps you and others can support me in finding answers to the following questions
What other meanings does the Arabic word ?kirada? carries besides apes?
Does ape and monkey mean the same in Arabic?
Would the family of mammals related to pigs, such as a hog, boar, guinea pig, warthog, etc., be considered forbidden as well?As a side note, we know that khanzeer doesn?t specifically mean a pig and carries other definitions such as ill-seeming, bad, filthy, etc., hence ?lahma kanzeer? can possibly mean an ?ill-seeming/bad/filthy meat?. Anyone disagree on this? I am simply considering relevant points to support/back-up the verses in question.
-
SaLaM Danish
To say " You are acting like a pig" does not mean the person is now down on the ground on his hands nd knees acting like a pig. A pig is a filthy animal. Thats what the person is acting like. A PIG. Khanzeer has one meaning. Pig. If God wanted to say ill-seeming or unclean there ARE others word for it. But God kept it to the point. He turned them into apes and pigs.
The phrase "walahma alkhinzeeri" literally means and meat of the pig. To be more precise meat of pig. Lets say for the sake of it, khanzeer means "ill-seeming / bad / filth", then the translation of walahma alkhinzeeri would become and meat of ill-seeming / filth / bad. Khanzeer is a noun. Bad / Filth / ill-seeming are not nouns. Pig is a noun. Calling someone a pig will mean that the person is acting like a pig. Pig is a noun. Bad / filth / ill-seeming are not. God is mentioning 2 animals here. Ape and Pig. If one is a noun, so is the other one. God is not going to use one metaphore and one literal. Either both metaphore or both literal becoz God says his words are clear.
So far PB is running around in circles avoiding many questions and points. How can someone ask SM to refute whats being said here PB himself cant do it. Lets be fair here.
-
Peace PB,
I did answer your questions, in my previous posts, which is more than you did for me.
- If pig, as a quadruped, is haram for us to eat, why, then, did Allah simply not say...the pig, in its entirety, is forbidden to eat, and be done with it?
Ask Allah why he wanted to forbid the meat of pig.
- If Allah meant only for us to abstain from the "flesh of the "pig", ostensibly per ayat 53, why, then, does ayat 51 say The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...? Ayat 51 is speaking of a whole animal/quadruped, while ayat 53, is referring to a particular part of an quadruped. This is an obvious discrepancy. You must clear this up, as it is absolutely pertinent to your assertion.
- What quadrupeds are recited to us which are not allowed to us? Ayat 51, if translated correctly, says quadrupeds, plural, and not quadruped singular, hence, the pig, must not be the only disallowed quadruped. What quadrupeds is this ayat referring to? You must clear this up, as it is absolutely pertinent to your assertion.
I cleared this up here
Perhaps you would like to look at my post again? In case it was NOT clear, it was an illustration of a rule which is 'all food lawful unless prohibited by restrictions'. These restrictions then specify what is in particular prohibited.
51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you,
Quadrupeds are lawful except that which is recited to you. Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions. The restrictions specify what is in particular prohibited.
In addition to the above, since you say that the whole pig is halal, and Allah must mean an entire named animal like the pig then
- None of the restrictions tell us of an entire named animal/quadraped restricted. It's either don't eat animals which are dead/strangled etc (whole/meat/part generic animal), don't eat part of an animal etc (pig/blood). Don't eat stuff dedicated to another/divided by chance etc (whole generic animal) and don't eat that which has been attacked by wild animals unless you can save it before it dies (detailed restriction of generic animal, don't quite know how to categorize it ? ). That puts the meat of pig completely in context to the other restrictions.
1a) Thus, to you this verse and the statement in this verse 'except that which is prohibited' would be completely retarded, because then you can't justify a named animal restricted entirely anyway, which works completely against what you say it means and further, tells us that God arbitrarily put that in when it doesn't mean anything. The only obvious solution to this retarded statement then is that "Quadrupeds are lawful except that which is recited to you. Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions. The restrictions specify what is in particular prohibited." This is exactly what the verse is saying itself, NOT your supposed contradiction of whole named animal.
- It is apparent now that the quadruped--the pig was never haram for the Jews nor for Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Israel, Joseph and all of their peoples, as well as, humanity at large. This being the case, why, all of a sudden, is the pig now dirty, filthy, foul, haram quadruped?
No, it is NOT apparent whether OR not the pig was haram for these people. Thats just conjecture. You might as well ask, why did Allah not send the quran earlier? Why did Allah allow us to marry two sisters in the past in 423? The verse says 'except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful;-'. You might as well ask, why were we not permitted to approach the women on the nights of fasting in the past as in 2187? The verse says 'but He turned to you and forgave you; so now associate with them, and seek what Allah Hath ordained for you'. We don't know what these people adam etc were allowed OR not allowed unless we are told of it in the quran. We should STOP conjecturing about these questions which are red herrings.
Please respond to my previous posts?
edited to add/correct