Is Swine Hallal

[unknownuser]

THOR,

Regarding your question

1. The Jews are included in all mankind and the restrictions in do apply to them

AND

2. The Jews are not included in all mankind and the restrictions in do not apply to them

I can't be clearer than that.

Here's my point. The Jews, per ayat 6146, which is speaking of the Jews PRIOR to the coming of Al-Quran, were never forbidden to eat swine. The food restricted to them, due to their transgressions and not because the animal by its creation was filthy or unclean for consumption, were animal with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep. Once again, the fat, as with the animals with claws, is not unclean/filthy.

Likewise, Allah, makes not mention of mankind in general, prior to the coming of Al-Quran , of swine being haram.

Do you accept this much?

[unknownuser]

Peace all,

To quote from Someone's post in the thread Pork & Logic at the following link

http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=30425#30425

Peace rossi,

The --> al

In arabic, an adjective has the same attributes as the word it's describing.

For example
The big (the)door --> albabou alkabirou.

a big door --> baboun kabiroun. (no al for both words)

In this case, "kabiroun" is an adjective describing "bab", they both have to have al, or both without al for the statement to be correct gramaticaly. And both have the same finishing. (ou or oun)

Example 2
The door of the town --> babou almadinati

You will notice that only "madinati" has an al, and not "babou". Thus "madinati" cannot be an adjective of babou, because
1- babou and madinati don't have the same finishing.
2- bab has no al, and madinat has an al.
So we know from the gramatical construction of the sentence that "madinat" is not an adjective for "bab".

The case we have for "lahmou alkhinziri" is the same as example 2. So "khinziri" cannot be an adjective for "lahmou".

The case for "lahma khinzeerin" is the same as example 1 from the above post (underlined and bolded). Considering "lahma khinzeerin" in 6145, please note that "lahma" and "khinzeerin" do not have the same ending, so "khinzeerin" cannot be an adjective for "lahma" and has to be a noun. For it to be an adjective it has to be either allahma alkhinzeerin or lahmoun khinzeeroun.

Please also note something very interesting. Out of all occurrences of "lahm khinzeer" in 2173, 53, 6145, 16116, only in 6145, "khinzeerin" is without "al", and only in 6145 "lahma khinzeerin" is followed by the adjective "rijsun", which makes it further clear that "khinzeerin" cannot be the adjective of "lahma", as then there would be 2 adjectives in a row meaning the same for the same noun, which would be redundant.

So, in 6145, "lahma" and "khinzeerin" do not have the same ending "oun" and also they are followed by an adjective "rijsun", further reinforcing that "khinzeerin" is a noun in that instance.

That, folks, is the final nail in the coffin !

[unknownuser]

Peace PRIEST_BOKMEI and others,

Here's my point. The Jews, per ayat 6146, which is speaking of the Jews PRIOR to the coming of Al-Quran, were never forbidden to eat swine. The food restricted to them, due to their transgressions and not because the animal by its creation was filthy or unclean for consumption, were animal with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep. Once again, the fat, as with the animals with claws, is not unclean/filthy.

Likewise, Allah, makes not mention of mankind in general, prior to the coming of Al-Quran , of swine being haram.

Yes, as per my understanding, I am in support of the above thus far.

Now, after reading and contemplating few times over, here's what I have personally understood as per PB's notions (remember, this is just my understanding and nothing certain yet)

Firstly, isn?t the word ?rijsun? separated by a comma, emphasizing not only on the ?pig?s? meat but as well as on other restrictions in general, as to mean ?morally detestable? or abomination as a whole. Lets analyze the verses below by putting the words khanzeer (meaning ill-seeming) and rijsun (meaning abomination) in perspective, shall we

Free-minds translation taken from http//www.submission.org/quran/webqt.php

He Has only forbidden for you what is already dead, and the blood, and the ill-seeming meat, and what was dedicated to other than God. Whoever finds himself forced out of need and without disobedience or animosity, then there is no sin upon him. God is Forgiving, Merciful.

Forbidden to you is that which is already dead, and the blood, and the ill-seeming meat, 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 that you divide by the arrows of chance. This is all vile. Today the rejecters have given up from your system, so do not fear them, but fear Me. Today I have perfected your system for you, and completed My blessings upon you, and I have accepted surrender as the system for you. So, whoever is forced by severe hunger and not seeking sin, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.

Say "I do not find in what is inspired to me forbidden except that it be already dead, or blood, or the ill-seeming meat, for it is an abomination or what is corruptly dedicated to other than God." Whoever is forced without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.

He only made forbidden for you what is already dead, and blood, and the ill-seeming meat, and what was sacrificed to any other than God. But whoever is forced to without disobedience or transgression, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.

Notice that no animal is singled out and the verses are talking about all animals/meats in general. Besides, pig is not the only filthy animal singling out as taught for whatever reasons. Please browse the following links with sub-links (and many more by google search)

http//www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=filthy+animals

http//www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=animals+eating+faeces&btnG=Search

http//www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=animals+eating+manure&btnG=Search

Say "Shall I inform you of worse than this as a punishment from God? Those whom God cursed and became angry at them, and He made them apes and ill-seeming and servants of evil. Those have a worst place and are more astray from the right path."

This verse talks about people?s behaviour such as of apes (jumpy, childish, clumsy, excited, etc.), the ill-seeming (sick, filthy, mental, funky, irregular, etc.) and the servants of evil (obnoxious, dangerous, wicked, harmful, offensive, unwilling/uncompromising, etc.).

What do you think folks?

[unknownuser]

Peace all,

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT PORK IS INTRINSICALLY BAD (RIJSUN)

It is well known that pork consumption can cause many kinds of infections. However, there is scientific evidence that even UNINFECTED pig meat can cause various diseases, showing that pig meat is intrinsically bad (bad by nature). Amazing scientific verification of Allah's words, calling pig meat "rijsun".

Following is summary of scientific evidence that pig meat is bad by nature

(A) Pork and Liver Cirrhosis

1. Cirrhosis mortality (death rate due to liver cirrhosis) correlates significantly with pork consumption but not with ethanol intake.

2. Pork facilitates the occurrence of cirrhosis in individuals who drink alcohol.

(B) Pork and Liver Cancer

Both alcohol and pork are associated with the risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma.

(C) Pork and Multiple Sclerosis

The peculiar geographical distribution of multiple sclerosis (MS) has long been a puzzle to researchers. One of the risk factors for MS is dietary fat. Since beef and pork are major sources of animal fat, the relationship between MS and the consumption of beef and pork was investigated.

The per capita consumption of beef and pork was correlated with prevalence rates for MS. For the purposes of the study, only those countries where case ascertainment was complete were included.

The study showed that pork consumption correlates with both prevalence of MS and latitude and that might explain why MS is common in temperate countries (e.g. Western Europe) and rare in countries where pork is forbidden by religious customs (e.g. Middle East).

The strength of the correlation between pork consumption and MS prevalence is impressive enough to suggest that pork increases the risk of developing MS.

(D) Pork and Vascular Disease

Studies indicate a higher proportion of cerebrovascular disease in countries with a higher pork consumption suggesting that pork somehow contributes to the development of cerebrovascular disease.

(E) Does Pork Consumption Lead to Alcoholism?

Given the several studies cited above, the obvious question is Does pork consumption lead to alcohol consumption. To test this hypothesis, figures for both alcohol and pork consumption were correlated in 36 countries. A significant correlation was obtained. To study whether this relationship held true within a country, the same correlation was studied in the 10 provinces of Canada. The study showed a significant correlation between pork consumption and the number of alcoholics in each province.

REFERENCES

1. A.A. NANJI and S.W. FRENCH, "Lancet" 1, 681 (1985).
2. T. SORENSEN et al, "Lancet" 2, 241 (1984).
3. Food and Agricultural Organization. "Production year book 1975-1983". 4. B. AMSTRONG and R. DOLL, "Int. J. Cancer", 15, 617 (1975).
4. G.E. GRAY et al, "Br. J. Cancer" 39, 1 (1979).
5. R. SMITH, "Br. Med. J" 283, 895 (1981).
6. A.A. NANJI and S.K FRENCH, "Cancer" 56, 2711 (1985).
7. J.F. KURTZKE, "Acta Neurol Scand" 51, 110 (1975).
8. M.C. GRAVES, "Ann Intern Med." 101, 514 (1984).
9. A.A. NANJ1, "Int. J. Cardiol" 8, 487 (1985).
10. Z. PISA and K. UEMURA, "World Health Stat" 35, 11 (1982).
11. A.S. ST-LEGER et al, "Lancet" 1, 1017 (1979).
12. A.A. NANJ1 and S.W. FRENCH, "Atherosclerosis" 60 197, 1986

PORK LINKED TO LIVER CIRRHOSIS

from Canadian Science News, January 1986

By

Carolyn Hoskins

FOR the first time, researchers have shown a possible link between cirrhosis of the liver and dietary factors other than alcohol. The recent findings of an Ottawa research team show that people who drink, even in moderation, and consume pork are more likely to suffer the potentially fatal liver disease than are people who consume other meat or fatty diets.

Dr Amin A. Nanji, Head of Clinical Biochemistry at the Ottawa General Hospital, and Samuel W French, Chairman of the Department of Pathology at the University of Ottawa, investigated the relationship between ?per capita? consumption of total fat, beef, and pork in several countries and the mortality rates for cirrhosis of the liver in these same countries. They focused their studies on countries where alcohol consumption was relatively low, such as Canada, the U.S., West Germany and Australia. Dr Nanji says previous reports had shown a high rate of deaths from cirrhosis in countries where alcohol consumption was very high, but a ?curious scatter? of deaths in countries where alcohol consumption was low.

In other words, countries with low levels of alcohol consumption showed a great variation in the incidence of cirrhosis deaths. Dr Nanji concluded that some other factor besides alcohol must be at work. Cirrhosis of the liver is a leading cause of death in North America. In the early stages of this degenerative disease, the liver becomes inflated by fat, a condition called ?alcoholic fatty liver?. This condition can be reversed.

In the later stages of cirrhosis, normal liver tissue is gradually replaced by fibrous tissue, the liver structure becomes misshapen and disorganized, and the liver cannot recover. Eventually the victim dies from liver failure. When the Ottawa team examined the diets of the countries in their study, they found no relationship between deaths from cirrhosis and dietary fat or beef consumption. However, they did find a striking correlation between pork consumption and cirrhosis mortality for the same countries. When they examined the relationship in terms of pork consumption multiplied by alcohol consumption, the results were overwhelming.

The two scientists also compared similar data from Canada?s ten provinces. Again cirrhosis mortality was significantly associated with pork, but not with alcohol consumption - presumably because Canadians as a group are not heavy drinkers. When the researchers left Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, where more seafood is eaten, there was an even stronger link between the fatal liver disease and pork consumption.

Even more convincing to the researchers were comparisons of pork consumption and its effect on cirrhosis death rates within a population. Among the Canadian provinces where alcohol consumption varies little between provinces (from 9.23 litres per person a year in New Brunswick to 13.05 in Alberta) the death rates from cirrhosis were directly related to ?per capita? pork consumption, but not to alcohol intake.

For example, although Albertans drink slightly more than people in British Columbia, they suffer far less from cirrhosis deaths than do people in B.C.,who have a higher pork intake. Dr Nanji says the researchers don?t know how pork might cause or enhance cirrhosis of the liver. Nor should their study be taken to mean that alcohol does not cause liver disease, he says. But other researchers have speculated that some ?facilitating factor? might explain why only some alcoholics get cirrhosis. The Ottawa team may have found part of the answer Dr Nanji says. Drs. Nanji and French hope to follow their statistical study with a ?case control study? in which they will investigate meat consumption of individual alcoholic and cirrhotic patients.

[Elena]

Peace Tanveermd,

I know that animals consumption is unhealthy, but you have not provided any figure, some % in your summary and haven't you find more recent studies?

[savage_carrot]

Peace Danish, all

Yes, as per my understanding, I am in support of the above thus far.

I'm not as noted in my previous posts even though I don't consider this to be the main point at all. The main point would be the definition of khanzeerin. As Tanveer put it, please check his post with the divisions into parts, the section

1. FORBIDDEN FOOD FOR MANKIND

Firstly, isn?t the word ?rijsun? separated by a comma, emphasizing not only on the ?pig?s? meat but as well as on other restrictions in general, as to mean ?morally detestable? or abomination as a whole.

I would like to be clear on how rijsun is being used as morally detestable, when there is another word used for that which is fisqun 'corrupt' and by going through the verses where this root occurs as perverse/rebellious/impious/wicked. This would be immoral or 'morally detestable', and it's already used for all restrictions.

The root of rijsun as has been posted here is

Ra-Jiim-Siin = state of commotion, confuse greatly, make a noise/sound, hinder/prevent, unclean/dirty/filthy, evil, something which is unlawful/forbidden, unbelief/infidelity/doubt.

Thus all restrictions are called fisqun, khanzeerin is called additionally as rijsun. If we say pig meat is being singled out as created bad, then is blood also created bad? These are parts of animals that are restricted all the time (except if forced etc) not just entering into a particular state. If dead meat, blood and lahma khinzeerin are all called additionally as rijsun, then you have one out of them entering into a state thats restricted while the other two are always restricted unless forced etc. Thus one is bad/filthy/unclean in a certain state and the rest are always bad/filthy/unclean but all restrictions are lawful to us in times of necessity etc. What about the other 8 restrictions called fisqun but not rijsun? Is there something in particular about these three restrictions then? Or is it just pig meat? Thats an interesting question and one that may be answered by research etc as the quran only tells us that it is restricted and calls it rijsun.

Secondly, how is the definition of khinzeerin as ill seeming being applied? The definition as it stands is 'I see bad', lahma khinzeerin is being defined then as meat i see bad...something that you see is bad or ill seeming if you want, but it has to look bad as thats one of the definitions of the 'compound word'. Many times meat can look bad but still be good. Anyone who has frozen meat can testify to this, I recently had an argument over it and had to check health resources for how to gauge whether meat is bad by it's looks or not. The meat I had frozen had dark brown patches over it, it looked really bad. But in reality it was perfectly fine, even though it looked bad. I think it's called freezer burn or something. The site I checked told about how meat can look bad but be perfectly healthy to eat, and meat is not gauged by looks. Most times meat thats bad is gauged by smell. So how is meat i see bad being applied as actually bad meat? Or are we restricted to eat 'meat i see bad' even though it's perfectly fine to eat?

This verse talks about people?s behaviour such as of apes (jumpy, childish, clumsy, excited, etc.), the ill-seeming (sick, filthy, mental, funky, irregular, etc.) and the servants of evil (obnoxious, dangerous, wicked, harmful, offensive, unwilling/uncompromising, etc.).

As I said before, literal words can be the same and the context will determine how to apply it. This is also because the words used apes and pigs will convey the meaning to us, if taken metaphorically, far better than choosing one meaning of a figurative word called as actually being used. Like take the above example you gave, and try choosing one meaning of them, as the word can only mean what it's meanings are...not ALL of the meanings but one depending on the context. So you have,

Say "Shall I inform you of worse than this as a punishment from God? Those whom God cursed and became angry at them, and He made them apes(clumsy/jumpy/funky? which one?) and ill-seeming (I see bad/filthy/mental? which one?) and servants of evil(self explanatory). Those have a worst place and are more astray from the right path."

OR

Say "Shall I inform you of worse than this as a punishment from God? Those whom God cursed and became angry at them, and He made them apes and pigs and servants of evil. Those have a worst place and are more astray from the right path."

Now in the latter, the literal words being used are giving to us the idea of what God turned them into, if taken metaphorically, you can read it as these people became animals like apes and pigs (their assorted behaviours) and servants of evil. This is ensuring integrity and consistency throughout. It's clear which is the better translation, as it also doesn't create problems elsewhere.

[unknownuser]

PEACE, DANISH,

PBM Here's my point. The Jews, per ayat 6146, which is speaking of the Jews PRIOR to the coming of Al-Quran, were never forbidden to eat swine. The food restricted to them, due to their transgressions and not because the animal by its creation was filthy or unclean for consumption, were animal with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep. Once again, the fat, as with the animals with claws, is not unclean/filthy.

Likewise, Allah, makes not mention of mankind in general, prior to the coming of Al-Quran , of swine being haram.

Yes, as per my understanding, I am in support of the above thus far.

Now, after reading and contemplating few times over, here's what I have personally understood as per PB's notions (remember, this is just my understanding and nothing certain yet)

Firstly, isn?t the word ?rijsun? separated by a comma, emphasizing not only on the ?pig?s? meat but as well as on other restrictions in general, as to mean ?morally detestable? or abomination as a whole. Lets analyze the verses below by putting the words khanzeer (meaning ill-seeming) and rijsun (meaning abomination) in perspective, shall we

He Has only forbidden for you what is already dead, and the blood, and the ill-seeming meat, and what was dedicated to other than God. Whoever finds himself forced out of need and without disobedience or animosity, then there is no sin upon him. God is Forgiving, Merciful.

Forbidden to you is that which is already dead, and the blood, and the ill-seeming meat, 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 that you divide by the arrows of chance. This is all vile. Today the rejecters have given up from your system, so do not fear them, but fear Me. Today I have perfected your system for you, and completed My blessings upon you, and I have accepted surrender as the system for you. So, whoever is forced by severe hunger and not seeking sin, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.

Say "I do not find in what is inspired to me forbidden except that it be already dead, or blood, or the ill-seeming meat, for it is an abomination or what is corruptly dedicated to other than God." Whoever is forced without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.

He only made forbidden for you what is already dead, and blood, and the ill-seeming meat, and what was sacrificed to any other than God. But whoever is forced to without disobedience or transgression, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.

Notice that no animal is singled out and the verses are talking about all animals/meats in general. Besides, pig is not the only filthy animal singling out as taught for whatever reasons. Please browse the following links with sub-links (and many more by google search)

Say "Shall I inform you of worse than this as a punishment from God? Those whom God cursed and became angry at them, and He made them apes and ill-seeming and servants of evil. Those have a worst place and are more astray from the right path."

This verse talks about people?s behaviour such as of apes (jumpy, childish, clumsy, excited, etc.), the ill-seeming (sick, filthy, mental, funky, irregular, etc.) and the servants of evil (obnoxious, dangerous, wicked, harmful, offensive, unwilling/uncompromising, etc.).

Thank you for your understanding, Danish. It is clear that khinzerin translates perfectly in the all the ayats as ill-seeming, thereby, obviating and any need to be an expert in Arabic grammar or the need to play the "context" game or the "literal vs. figurative " game, thus, obviating the possibility of creating a discrepancy .

Let me run the following by you for your analysis

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.

6146 For those who followed the Jewish Law, We forbade every (animal) with undivided hoof, and We forbade them that fat of the ox and the sheep, except what adheres to their backs or their entrails, or is mixed up with a bone this in recompense for their wilful disobedience for We are true (in Our ordinances).

SC and Tanveer, assert that ayat 51 is referring to the quadruped pig. Now, if we look at this ayat closely, it cannot possibly be referring to the quadruped pig.

1. The ayat is referring more than one quadruped. What other quadruped did Allah make haram other than the pig? The ayat, further, is referring to the entire quadruped and not an aspect/part of it. Lahma khinzerin, if one believes it is referring to an actual pig, certainly, is referring not to the pig in its entirety, but to a part/aspect of it--its flesh. Allah, without a doubt, knows how to distinguish something in its entirety from as aspect of its entirety. This we see done in the above ayat 6146 where Allah made haram for the Jews, in their entirety, the animals with claws, but only made an aspect of the oxen and sheep haram--their fat. Per ayat 51, SC and Tanveer, in an attempt to justify their illogical assertions, wish to make an entire animal= a restricted part.

2. We can all agree that fasiqun and rijisun are very powerful descriptive terms. My question to SC and Tanveer, which they had no rational answer for is, why did Allah knowing that the pig is fasiqun and rijisun, yet, allow the Prophets/Messengers and all of the righteous among them, for ages, to eat swine? This just makes no sense.

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...

3. According to the above ayat, the Jews, being a People of the Book, cannot claim, for example that, shellfish is haram to them, because Allah in Al-Quran has not designated shellfish to be haram. Likwise, nowhere, in Al-Quran does Allah designate the animal pig in its entirety or one of its parts , as being haram for the Jews either, only all animals with claws and fat of oxen and sheep, that is it. Given all this, it is clear that in no way was the pig forbidden to the Jews in any capacity, hence, it was/is lawful to them, and, per ayat 55, it is lawful to us as well.

Looking forward to your comments.

[savage_carrot]

Peace all,

PB has no recourse but to start flooding other threads with questions that have already been answered and should stay on this thread. The rest of his points have been refuted time and time again and instead of addressing the refutations he brings the SAME questions again. This is why I urge readers to read previous posts for refutations as there is nothing new here. Any questions about those refutations I would try to answer.

2. We can all agree that fasiqun and rijisun are very powerful descriptive terms. My question to SC and Tanveer, which they had no rational answer for is, why did Allah knowing that the pig is fasiqun and rijisun, yet, allow the Prophets/Messengers and all of the righteous among them, for ages, to eat swine? This just makes no sense.

The rational answers have been given time and time again but the irrational questions remain. Here is a flashback to when PB himself admitted that the Jews knew and were aware of these restrictions. On page 7 of this thread

The Jews already knew it was forbidden to eat blood, dead meat, etc. If this weren't true, then, why would Allah, for ages, allow the righteous to consume unhealthy foods? The additional dietary restrictions were a punishment and not because they were by nature unhealthy for consumption.

Show me in the quran where the Jews KNEW it was forbidden to eat blood, dead meat, etc WHEN YOU KEEP SAYING 6146 WERE THE ONLY RESTRICTIONS ON THEM?!?!? This is another example of inconsistency and flitting from one thing to another when it doesn't suit him, as Thor also pointed out in his posts. Also since the Jews knew the others, they also knew about pig meat/lahma khinzeerin. Why is that left out, because it didn't jive with PB's agenda to include that one.

Since the Jews already knew then God did mention it to them hmmm? That includes lahma khinzeerin/pig meat as they don't eat that as well, it's in their scripture as well, it is in OUR SCRIPTURE as well. Authenticate and supercede. That's all there is to it.

Please also refer to Tanveer's post on page 7 of this thread and the section "1.FORBIDDEN FOOD FOR MANKIND". Additionally what is pathetic is, PB insists periodically when he randomly feels like it, that God never forbade pig meat/lahma khinzeerin to the jews in the quran and in history, therefore its okay to eat it (we've seen above evidence of this, it is also evidence of deliberately picking one out of a list of other items in the same verse), then according to his logic, God never forbade them BLOOD, WHAT IS ALREADY DEAD AND THE REST in the quran either and in history. Why oh why did God allow the Prophets/Messengers and all of the righteous among them including jews, for ages, to eat these? This just makes no sense.

But we have the answer in PB's own quote that they had to have been there for them. This is not good enough 'at random times' for PB, even though the Jew's food is the crux of his argument, and the question magically changes to 'Well what about Noah's food then eh wink wink?'. To which the answer is, we only know what is in the quran and that it authenticates and supercedes previous scripture. That tells us all we need to know using common sense. It is such an obvious thing that in any other circumstance, we would not even be arguing about it. Why does PB want to talk about Noah's food when he himself say's DO NOT CONJECTURE ABOUT WHAT IS NOT IN THE QURAN? PB only knows.

Btw, BLOOD is also restricted all the time unless forced etc and it's not dependent on entering a certain state...wonder how PB explains that one?

edited to add

[unknownuser]

PEACE, TO ALL

SC, perhaps this time to you will not come back with your opinions, misquotes, attempting to equate things which are not equal, duck questions, etc. I would like you or anyone, to simply, via Al-Quran, find the holes in any of the following.

2. We can all agree that fasiqun and rijisun are very powerful descriptive terms. My question to SC and Tanveer, which they had no rational answer for is, why did Allah knowing that the pig is fasiqun and rijisun, yet, allow the Prophets/Messengers and all of the righteous among them, for ages, to eat swine? This just makes no sense.

SAVAGE C The rational answers have been given time and time again but the irrational questions remain. Here is a flashback to when PB himself admitted that the Jews knew and were aware of these restrictions. On page 7 of this thread

I'm still waiting for you and Tanveer, to provide the rational/Quranic answer to the above question. Every time I ask this question, you continue to respond that it has been answered but I never see this answered posted. You think that, simply saying I've been refuted means that I have been refuted?! LOL! that is not a refutation at all. It's just talk.

The Jews already knew it was forbidden to eat blood, dead meat, etc. If this weren't true, then, why would Allah, for ages, allow the righteous to consume unhealthy foods? The additional dietary restrictions were a punishment and not because they were by nature unhealthy for consumption.

SAVAGE C Show me in the quran where the Jews KNEW it was forbidden to eat blood, dead meat, etc WHEN YOU KEEP SAYING 6146 WERE THE ONLY RESTRICTIONS ON THEM?!?!? This is another example of inconsistency and flitting from one thing to another when it doesn't suit him, as Thor also pointed out in his posts. Also since the Jews knew the others, they also knew about pig meat/lahma khinzeerin. Why is that left out, because it didn't jive with PB's agenda to include that one. Since the Jews already knew then God did mention it to them hmmm? That includes lahma khinzeerin/pig meat as they don't eat that as well, it's in their scripture as well, it is in OUR SCRIPTURE as well. Authenticate and supercede. That's all there is to it.

1. I'm not saying now nor have I ever said that, the Jews didn't have other restrictions placed on them. What I've been saying is that, if you would pay attention to Al-Quran and what I'm saying, Allah, never made haram/unlawful to Jews any animal or animal part, based on the notion that a particular animal or its part, by its created nature, was fasiqun/rijisun. Yet, you and Tanveer, want to declare that, Allah, made the flesh of the pig, by nature/its creation, fisiqun and rijisun. That is really bold.

2. Irrespective of whatever else Allah made haram for the Jews for the Jews, we do know the He made the following animals and animal part, haram for them

6146 And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.

The above ayat makes it clear that

A. we are talking about animals or parts of animals used for food.

B. only animals/quadrupeds with claws, in their entirety, were made haram along with a particular part (the fat of), of the non-clawed quadrupeds--oxen and sheep.

C. these haram things are not haram because they are fasiqun or rijisun, but are haram because they are a punishment.

D. given that the pig is non-clawed quadruped, neither it in its entirety nor any part of it, was haram for the Jews.

E. these facts, conclusively, prove that the pig, neither in part or whole, was ever haram for the Jews for food.

3. Now, look at the following ayat

16118 To the Jews We made haram such things as We have mentioned to you before We did them no wrong, but they were used to doing wrong to themselves.

The question, which now screams out to be answered is,...what things were mentioned to the Messenger as being haram for the Jews? Well, Allah tells us in the following ayat what animals in their entirety and what animal part, in particular, He made haram for the Jews to eat"

6146 And to those who were Jews We made haram every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.

Do you or anyone else, see any possible way that the clawless quadruped--the pig or any of its parts, can be represented in ayat 6146 and 16118? If so, please, via Al-Quran, prove it.

SAVAGE C Since the Jews already knew then God did mention it to them hmmm? That includes lahma khinzeerin/pig meat as they don't eat that as well, it's in their scripture as well

Look how your claim makes no sense. The pig, according to the Jews, is haram in its ENTIRETY, however, you stated it is halal for Muslims to eat the products made from pig hooves, bones, and fat. Do you see a slight disconnect here? Is this an example of Allah being consistent in His Laws? Relative then, to the matter of the pig, which scripture is correct,--Al-Quran or the scriptures the Jews have? We know the Jews must be lying about the pig being haram for them, because Allah, per ayats 6146 and 16118, completely precludes the pig being made haram by Him

4. Another problem you and Tanveer have yet to overcome is, the "restrictions, that is, haram" theory and your rationale for it--51.

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.

You and Tanveer, wish to make a supposedly haram part of the pig--the flesh=to the entire four-footed animal. The above ayat, clearly, states "all four-footed animals named, with exceptions named"... and not except named haram parts. Allah, per ayat 6146, knows how to convey to mankind the difference between something as an entirety and an aspect/the part of an entirety. Don't ya think?

SAVAGE CPlease also refer to Tanveer's post on page 7 of this thread and the section "1.FORBIDDEN FOOD FOR MANKIND". Additionally what is pathetic is, PB insists periodically when he randomly feels like it, that God never forbade pig meat/lahma khinzeerin to the jews in the quran and in history, therefore its okay to eat it

I've proven above that the pig, according to Al-Quran, was not a haram animal for food for the Jews, hence, the following ayat proves lahma khinzerin cannot mean flesh of the pig

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...

SAVAGE C (we've seen above evidence of this, it is also evidence of deliberately picking one out of a list of other items in the same verse), then according to his logic, God never forbade them BLOOD, WHAT IS ALREADY DEAD AND THE REST in the quran either and in history. Why oh why did God allow the Prophets/Messengers and all of the righteous among them including jews, for ages, to eat these, knowing all along that, the FLESH OF THE PIG was FASIQUN/RIJISUN? This just makes no sense.

What's pathetic is, how you left out what I said. I put it back in bold.

Of course it makes sense. You claim the flesh of the pig is haram, because it is fasiqun/rijisun, yes? Well, if it was fasiqun/rijisun at the time of ayat 2173, then it must have been haram and fasiqun/rijisun at the very time of the creation of the pig, correcto? This being the case then, why did Allah allow the Prophets/Messengers and all of the righteous among them, for ages, to eat the pig? We know conclusively, per ayats 6146 and 16118, among others, that the pig was not made haram for the Jews, thus, if you wish to continue support lahma khinzerin as being pig,...why, then, is Allah only making it haram with the advent of Al-Quran?

SAVAGE C...To which the answer is, WE ONLY KNOW WHAT IS IS IN THE QURAN and that it authenticates and supercedes previous scripture. That tells us all we need to know using common sense. It is such an obvious thing that in any other circumstance, we would not even be arguing about it....

Well, if you believe what you said in the bold and caps, then you must accept the following

A. ayat 6146 makes clear that ONLY animals with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep, were made haram for the Jews to eat as food. This was not done because the foods were fasiqun/rijisun, but because it was a punishment.

B. ayat 16118 makes it clear that the thing mentioned to the Messenger ( and us) as being haram to the Jews to eat as food, is mentioned in ayat 6146.

C. with A and B in mind then, it is clear that the Jews were not forbidden to eat swine.

D. with A, B. and C in mind then, ayat 55, tells us that their food is lawful to us.

E. with A, B, C, and D in mind then, lahma khinzerin, cannot be referring to the flesh of pig, because the Jews were never forbidden to eat, hence, their food is lawful to us.

F. with A, B, C, D, and E in mind then, if you persist in claiming that lahma khinzerin means the flesh of pigs, then, per your own above words in bold and caps, you contradict yourself and your position contradicts ayats 6146 and 16118.

Btw, BLOOD is also restricted all the time unless forced etc and it's not dependent on entering a certain state...wonder how PB explains that one?

Is blood an animal/quadruped?

Main Entry FLESH the soft parts of the body of an animal and especially of a vertebrate; especially the parts composed chiefly of skeletal muscle as distinguished from visceral structures, bone, and integuments a fleshy plant part used as food the fleshy part of a fruit.

Main Entry VISCERAL/VISCUS an internal organ of the body; especially one (as the heart, liver, or intestine) located in the great cavity of the trunk proper.

Hmmm...lahma/flesh, doesn't necessarily have to pertain to meat, but can pertain to plants, vegetables, and fruits as well. According to the above definitions, viscera, is NOT flesh, hence, the liver, the intestines and kidneys, along with bone and fat, are all halal. What is your reply to this?

[savage_carrot]

Peace all,

I'm still waiting for you and Tanveer, to provide the rational/Quranic answer to the above question. Every time I ask this question, you continue to respond that it has been answered but I never see this answered posted. You think that, simply saying I've been refuted means that I have been refuted?! LOL! that is not a refutation at all. It's just talk.

It has been posted, if you can't comprehend it, too bad.

1. I'm not saying now nor have I ever said that, the Jews didn't have other restrictions placed on them. What I've been saying is that, if you would pay attention to Al-Quran and what I'm saying, Allah, never made haram/unlawful to Jews any animal or animal part, based on the notion that a particular animal or its part, by its created nature, was fasiqun/rijisun. Yet, you and Tanveer, want to declare that, Allah, made the flesh of the pig, by nature/its creation, fisiqun and rijisun. That is really bold.

Here take a look

According to Al-Quran, the Jews were only forbidden to eat animals with claws and the fat ox oxen and sheep, except, what adhered to the bones.

Ayat 6146 tells us EXACTLY what Allah forbade the Jews, that is all.

Now, given that 6146 does not mention khinzerin as one of the haram foods of the Jews, swine, then, it was never made haram for the Jews by Allah.

Just a taste of the many times you have said 6146 were the ONLY restrictions on the Jews. Do you think we can't read what you've been writing?

Yes, what is BOLD is, Allah did make BLOOD a part of an animal restricted for us that is created BAD, it's NOT dependent on entering any state. Address this point. How do you explain it?!?

2. Irrespective of whatever else Allah made haram for the Jews for the Jews, we do know the He made the following animals and animal part, haram for them

Why don't YOU tell me how in the WORLD do you know what ELSE Allah made haram for the Jews when you say 6146 are the ONLY restrictions. Please explain this inconsistency, the rest of your numberings are the same old HAT.

16118 To the Jews We made haram such things as We have mentioned to you before We did them no wrong, but they were used to doing wrong to themselves.

The question, which now screams out to be answered is,...what things were mentioned to the Messenger as being haram for the Jews? Well, Allah tells us in the following ayat what animals in their entirety and what animal part, in particular, He made haram for the Jews to eat"

The question that NOW screams to be answered is what does 16115 say?

16115
He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and any (food) over which the name of other than Allah has been invoked. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

The Jews were given additional restrictions as a punishment. We have been saying it throughout while YOU claim that they were the ONLY ones. Why don't you tell us what your stand is

Was 6146 the ONLY restrictions on the Jews? Yes OR No?

Look how your claim makes no sense. The pig, according to the Jews, is haram in its ENTIRETY, however, you stated it is halal for Muslims to eat the products made from pig hooves, bones, and fat. Do you see a slight disconnect here? Is this an example of Allah being consistent in His Laws? Relative then, to the matter of the pig, which scripture is correct,--Al-Quran or the scriptures the Jews have? We know the Jews must be lying about the pig being haram for them, because Allah, per ayats 6146 and 16118, completely precludes the pig being made haram by Him

Look why don't YOU read? The pig is haram for the Jews yes? The pig meat is haram for us yes? Authenticate and supercede? Look these words up in a dictionary.

You and Tanveer, wish to make a supposedly haram part of the pig--the flesh=to the entire four-footed animal. The above ayat, clearly, states "all four-footed animals named, with exceptions named"... and not except named haram parts. Allah, per ayat 6146, knows how to convey to mankind the difference between something as an entirety and an aspect/the part of an entirety. Don't ya think?

Don't ya think you should do us all a favour instead of repeating OLD HAT, that has been answered before? Answer these Yes or NO questions

Do we find the exceptions mentioned in 51? Yes OR No?
Do we find the exceptions mentioned in another verse in the quran? Yes Or No?
Do the exceptions detail what is restricted? Yes Or No?
Do the restrictions tell us about parts of animals? Yes Or No? hint Bloodssss
Is there an entire named quadruped restricted ALL the time? Yes Or No?

I've proven above that the pig, according to Al-Quran, was not a haram animal for food for the Jews, hence, the following ayat proves lahma khinzerin cannot mean flesh of the pig

No you haven't. Keep repeating your claims. Don't make 'em true now do it?

What's pathetic is, how you left out what I said. I put it back in bold.

What is TRULY PATHETIC is that even with that in, it doesn't change the point AT ALL... lol Readers, do read the part where the answer is in PB's own quote...

Of course it makes sense. You claim the flesh of the pig is haram, because it is fasiqun/rijisun, yes? Well, if it was fasiqun/rijisun at the time of ayat 2173, then it must have been haram and fasiqun/rijisun at the very time of the creation of the pig, correcto? This being the case then, why did Allah allow the Prophets/Messengers and all of the righteous among them, for ages, to eat the pig? We know conclusively, per ayats 6146 and 16118, among others, that the pig was not made haram for the Jews, thus, if you wish to continue support lahma khinzerin as being pig,...why, then, is Allah only making it haram with the advent of Al-Quran?

Read your own quotes where you accepted that the Jews had other restrictions, do tell me how you got that...was it temporary madness? If it wasn't and you are NOW changing your stance to well, the Jews HAD other restrictions...then please tell us HOW you believe so, and what makes you think that these things were NOT there in the past in scripture? Do you have proof that they were NOT there? Absence of an affirmative DOES NOT mean its NEGATIVE now does it?

Well, if you believe what you said in the bold and caps, then you must accept the following

No, why should I accept what you say? It's NOT what the quran says in it's entirety and the refutations have been given very many times in this thread...that is just ignored...

Is blood an animal/quadruped?

When someone says this in resposnse to a question I asked regarding 'are there parts of animals told of in the restrictions?', this someone who insists that the restrictions MUST involve whole quadrupeds ONLY...there is nothing I can say, it makes me want to kill myself yet again during the course of this thread. The point just flies right on by...Whoooooooosh...

Blood is a part of an animal. It is included in the restrictions. Therefore ONLY WHOLE ENTIRE QUADRUPED is NOT what 51 is saying, it is telling you EXCEPT WHAT IS RECITED TO YOU. What is recited to you is NOT in the same verse, BUT IN ANOTHER VERSE are the EXCEPTIONS/RESTRICTIONS, that include BLOOD, which is PART of an ANIMAL, Biology 101... roll

Hmmm...lahma/flesh, doesn't necessarily have to pertain to meat, but can pertain to plants, vegetables, and fruits as well. According to the above definitions, viscera, is NOT flesh, hence, the liver, the intestines and kidneys, along with bone and fat, are all halal. What is your reply to this?

Hmmm...it's good that people will be SAVED by replacing their organs with PIG ORGANS then...and it is halal so no complaints and arguments...cool, wunderbar.

edited to add

[unknownuser]

...

[unknownuser]

SC,

PBM We can all agree that fasiqun and rijisun are very powerful descriptive terms. My question to you and Tanveer is, which neither of you have given any rational answer for, why did Allah, knowing all along, that the pig is fasiqun and rijisun by nature, yet, allow the Prophets/Messengers and all of the righteous among them, for ages , to eat swine? This just makes no sense.

I'm still waiting for you and Tanveer, to provide the rational/Quranic answer to the above question. Every time I ask this question, you continue to respond that it has been answered but I never see this answered posted. You think that, simply saying I've been refuted means that I have been refuted?! LOL! that is not a refutation at all. It's just talk. LOL! what's the matter....pig got your tongues?

It has been posted, if you can't comprehend it, too bad.

LOL! "too bad"?! Well, that is another question which cannot provide a Quranic/rational answer to, hence, it proves, once again, that you do not know what you are talking about. Your answer is inadequate.

SAVAGE C Yes, what is BOLD is, Allah did make BLOOD a part of an animal restricted for us that is created BAD, it's NOT dependent on entering any state. Address this point. How do you explain it?!?

Are you now claiming that, blood, is by nature, "bad/fisiqun/rijisun"? Is this truly your position?? Where do you get this from? Without blood, could you live?! Allah, has made blood haram to eat or even come into contact with without protection, because it can cause, though, not all of the time, sickness due its propensity to become infected. I hope you will have the intellectual maturity/honesty and rescind your claim that blood, by its very nature, is bad/fisiqun/rjisun. Are blood transfusions...haram?

SAVAGE C...To which the answer is, WE ONLY KNOW WHAT IS IS IN THE QURAN and that it authenticates and supercedes previous scripture. That tells us all we need to know using common sense. It is such an obvious thing that in any other circumstance, we would not even be arguing about it....

Well, if you believe what you said in the bold and caps, then you must accept the following. You may call the following "old hat", but you've yet to answer yes or no to them. Hopefully, you will answer yes or no in your next response.

A. ayat 6146 makes clear that the ONLY animals, either in their entirety or some part, which was made haram to Jews to eat, were the class of animals with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep. This was not done because the foods were fasiqun/rijisun by nature, but because it was a punishment.

Is this correct, yes or no? If no, why?

B. ayat 16118 makes it clear that, the things mentioned to the Messenger ( and us) as being made haram for the Jews specifically to eat, prior to the revelation Al-Quran, are mentioned in ayat 6146.

Is this correct, yes or no? If no, why?

C. with A and B in mind then, based on Al-Quran only and alone, it is clear that the Jews were not forbidden to eat swine either as a whoe or any particular part..

Is this correct, yes or no? If no, why?

The large print is not my doing.

[unknownuser]

Peace Tanveer, Nadia, Priest_Bokmei and others,

Thank you all for your responses and Nadia?s assistance much earlier. Being time repressed and shadowing other responsibilities, please pardon me for not replying to individual posts but will summarize my thoughts here.

Just to give our friend Tanveer and others some statistics, Cirrhosis is a disease of the liver caused mainly by alcohol consumption, hepatitis, exposure to toxins/drugs and other inherited viral metabolic dysfunctions and has nothing to do with specifically pig?s meat. Any animal (including humans) can be infected by Cirrhosis.
http//digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/cirrhosis/index.htm
http//cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/gi/cirrhosis.html

Liver cancers, Sclerosis and vascular diseases has nothing to do with pig?s meat specifically either. Eating pig?s meat leading to alcoholism is simply hilarious.

Majority of the Western countries and many Eastern as well, who consume pig?s meat (pork, ham, bacon, ribs, etc.) from childhood up, yet never heard nor any scientific proofs of children/adults getting sick or dying because of eating pig?s meat. As a matter of fact, people have gotten seriously ill and/or died due to eating any infectious meat (the well-known case of cow?s meat in England is a good example). Anything that is edible (animals, fruits, vegetables, dough, dry-fruits, etc.), can be infectious by whatever cause, or eaten because of our own irresponsibilities and misjudgments, is a different matter and becomes a frivolous case to blame it specifically on pigs. Most dangerous snakes, crustaceans and other animals that carry within them poisonous substances that can kill a human instantly, yet people hunt, cook and eat them with pleasure.

On one occasion when some of my friends got together, a 45 year old vegetarian friend of mine had his first bite on a chicken. Finding the chicken meat delicious, he ate more. We found out that he was the only one who had gotten sick the next day for a couple more days. Later, his body got adjusted to further meat consumption without getting sick and continues to eat chicken with delight till today. Now, was the chicken infectious or was it his metabolism that couldn?t handle the sudden intake of meat (or any meat) which his body had never experienced? On the contrary, if the chicken was infected, then perhaps we all would have been affected and my vegetarian friend in a more dreadful situation. The same sort of scenario is true for the first timers who drink alcoholic beverages, smoke cigarettes and so forth, but eventually get used to it, not because that these are any good.

As per my current understanding, there?s no specific animal mentioned by name that is forbidden. Blood is not an animal, and along with meat, animals, fruits, vegetables, etc., all are generalized terms and not specific to any given name as such. We must carefully study, analyze and understand the contextual nature of all verses put together in which it speaks and to reason coherently, consistently and naturally as they occur. Therefore, why single out the word khinzeer to mean specifically a named animal pig rather that to deduce its meaning and usage as applied to all meat being generalized as ?ill-seeming?, which is also understood coherently and consistently in all other verses. Naturally then, in verse 560, humans don?t get transformed into pigs but are generalized to mean ?ill-seeming? beings/humans. Hence, insofar, I stand affirmative of all verses quoted earlier that contain the word khanzeer

He has only forbidden for you what is already dead, and the blood, and the ill-seeming meat, and what was dedicated to other than God. Whoever finds himself forced out of need and without disobedience or animosity, then there is no sin upon him. God is Forgiving, Merciful.

Forbidden to you is that which is already dead, and the blood, and the ill-seeming meat, 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 that you divide by the arrows of chance. This is all vile. Today the rejecters have given up from your system, so do not fear them, but fear Me. Today I have perfected your system for you, and completed My blessings upon you, and I have accepted surrender as the system for you. So, whoever is forced by severe hunger and not seeking sin, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.

Say "I do not find in what is inspired to me forbidden except that it be already dead, or blood, or the ill-seeming meat, for it is an abomination or what is corruptly dedicated to other than God." Whoever is forced without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.

He only made forbidden for you what is already dead, and blood, and the ill-seeming meat, and what was sacrificed to any other than God. But whoever is forced to without disobedience or transgression, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.

Say "Shall I inform you of worse than this as a punishment from God? Those whom God cursed and became angry at them, and He made them apes and ill-seeming and servants of evil. Those have a worst place and are more astray from the right path."

Is there anything wrong with the any of the above verses when read coherrently whilst keeping the pig aside, at least for now?

[unknownuser]

SC,

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.

52 O you who believe! do not violate the signs appointed by Allah nor the sacred month, nor (interfere with) the offerings, nor the sacrificial animals with garlands, nor those going to the sacred house seeking the grace and pleasure of their Lord; and when you are free from the obligations of the pilgrimage, then hunt, and let not hatred of a people-- because they hindered you from the Sacred Masjid-- incite you to exceed the limits, and help one another in goodness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and aggression; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is severe in requiting (evil).

53 Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked, and the strangled (animal) and that beaten to death, and that killed by a fall and that killed by being smitten with the horn, and that which wild beasts have eaten, except what you slaughter, and what is sacrificed on stones set up (for idols) and that you divide by the arrows; that is a transgression. This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion; but whoever is compelled by hunger, not inclining willfully to sin, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

54 They ask you as to what is allowed to them. Say The good things are allowed to you, and what you have taught the beasts and birds of prey, training them to hunt-- you teach them of what Allah has taught you-- so eat of that which they catch for you and mention the name of Allah over it; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is swift in reckoning.

55 This day (all) the good things are allowed to you; and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them; and the chaste from among the believing women and the chaste from among those who have been given the Book before you (are lawful for you); when you have given them their dowries, taking (them) in marriage, not fornicating nor taking them for paramours in secret; and whoever denies faith, his work indeed is of no account, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.

6146 And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.

O.k. I think I see what you mean by "restrictions named". Are you saying that, per ayat 51, although no quadruped or class of quadrupeds, as a whole entity is haram, there are restrictions as to what parts of the quadruped is allowed to eat (as well as states/conditions which are forbidden to eat). Is this your position?

If so, then, ayats 2173 and 53 contain those restricted parts. Is this your position?

If so, I can, at least for the moment anyway, accept this understanding.

Now, with that essentially off of the table, let's get back to ayat 55 and 6146.

SAVAGE C...To which the answer is, WE ONLY KNOW WHAT IS IS IN THE QURAN and that it authenticates and supercedes previous scripture.

If what you believe what you state above is true, then

In ayat 55, Allah, says that the food of the People of the Book, the Jews, is lawful to us. We know, per ayat 6146 that, Allah, made all clawed quadrupeds haram to them. Given that the pig is a non-clawed quadruped, it too, according to ayat 6146, could not have been haram for the Jews to eat neither in its entirety or any of its parts. With this in mind then, the pig, neither in whole or part, can be haram for us, because it was never haram to the Jews and, per ayat 55, their food is lawful to us. Now, while it is true that Allah has made prior halal food haram as punishment, where has He made prior halal food haram for a reason other than that?

If the pig, either in its entirety or any part, by nature, was/is fisiqun/rijisun, then it would have had to have been haram to the Jews, but ayat 6146 precludes this, because the pig is non-clawed animal/quadruped. With this in mind then, your maintaining that lahma khinzerin means flesh of pig, contradicts 55 and 6146.

If the pig was fisiqun/rijisun, in part or total, at the time of its creation hence unfit for human consumption, then it would have been fasiqun/rijisun prior to Al-Quran. In addition, as a non-clawed quadruped it becomes the exception to ayat 6146, thus, making it haram for the Jews prior to Al-Quran being revealed, however, the problem with that scenario is that--it outright contradicts ayat 6146 "And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws...". Pigs, have no claws. This is why I continue to ask you and Tanveer, why did Allah, knowing all along, that the pig is fasiqun and rijisun by nature, yet, allow the Prophets/Messengers and all of the righteous among them, for ages , to eat swine?

If the claw don't fit...you must acquit.

[unknownuser]

Peace Danish,

When you are discussing scientific facts, I would like to request you and urge you not to use scientifically inaccurate statements and mislead others. That can mean that either you do not have the accurate knowledge, or you are careless, or you are purposely/knowingly making those kind of statements.

Just to give our friend Tanveer and others some statistics, Cirrhosis is a disease of the liver caused mainly by alcohol consumption, hepatitis, exposure to toxins/drugs and other inherited viral metabolic dysfunctions

It should read "inherited metabolic dysfunctions", and not "inherited VIRAL metabolic dysfunctions".

Also the word "statistics" is wrongly used in your statement quoted above. I do not see any "statistics" in your entire post, let alone that statement.

Also a disease can be mainly caused by some things does not mean other things cannot cause it. For example blocked bile ducts can also cause cirrhosis (biliary cirrhosis).

and has nothing to do with specifically pig?s meat.

In my last post, I showed you the conclusions of scientific studies that prove that there is a significant (meaning statistically significant) causal correlation between cirrhosis mortality and pork consumption. I gave a list of references at the end, from scientific journals. Please take a course in statistics to understand what statistical significance means, and please read up the referenced articles in those scientific journals, before making a careless and inaccurate statement.

Any animal (including humans) can be infected by Cirrhosis.

I never said anything about infections in my post. Infections can cause cirrhosis but it is scientifically and medically completely inaccurate to say "infected by cirrhosis". One can be infected with an organism that can cause cirrhosis but one cannot be infected BY CIRRHOSIS. That is hilarious.

Liver cancers, Sclerosis and vascular diseases has nothing to do with pig?s meat specifically either.

The studies I quoted clearly prove otherwise. If you can reject the conclusion of scientific studies just like that without offering any scientific study of your own, or without quoting a scientific study that proves otherwise, then I can easily see from that how you can mistranslate the word of The God according to your own whims, without any regard to the grammatical rules and the context.

Majority of the Western countries and many Eastern as well, who consume pig?s meat (pork, ham, bacon, ribs, etc.) from childhood up, yet never heard nor any scientific proofs of children/adults getting sick or dying because of eating pig?s meat.

That again shows your ignorance. Look up the referenced articles in the scientific journals that I quoted from. You will find the actual data, including the number of people who died due to cirrhosis (cirrhosis mortality), which was scientifically correlated to eating pork (was statistically significant). If people have not heard of the scientific proof, does not mean that there is no scientific proof.

As a matter of fact, people have gotten seriously ill and/or died due to eating any infectious meat (the well-known case of cow?s meat in England is a good example). Anything that is edible (animals, fruits, vegetables, dough, dry-fruits, etc.), can be infectious by whatever cause, or eaten because of our own irresponsibilities and misjudgments, is a different matter and becomes a frivolous case to blame it specifically on pigs.

Once again, I repeat, that I never said anything about infections in my post. Any meat can be infected but that does not mean it is bad by nature. I showed you conclusions of scientific studies that show a scientific causal correlation between some diseases and pork consumption, showing that pork is intrinsically bad for the human body. That has nothing to do with any infection.

Most dangerous snakes, crustaceans and other animals that carry within them poisonous substances that can kill a human instantly, yet people hunt, cook and eat them with pleasure.

So then they are not bad by nature, but pig meat is, for scientific studies have shown that pork consumption can kill people by cirrhosis and liver cancer.

On one occasion when some of my friends got together, a 45 year old vegetarian friend of mine had his first bite on a chicken. Finding the chicken meat delicious, he ate more. We found out that he was the only one who had gotten sick the next day for a couple more days.

What you are presenting is anecdotal data and NOT scientific data. It is well known in the medical field that a group of people can eat bad meat or infected meat and not all will have symptoms of food poisoning or infection and get sick. Even if one gets sick, the symptoms or sickness could be mild or severe. It all depends on how strong one's immune system is, and the dose/quantity of infectious or bad meat ingested. Also only a portion of the chicken meat could be bad or infected, and whoever eats that part may get sick and others who ate from the same chicken piece will not get sick.

On the contrary, if the chicken was infected, then perhaps we all would have been affected and my vegetarian friend in a more dreadful situation.

Please see my comments above.

The same sort of scenario is true for the first timers who drink alcoholic beverages, smoke cigarettes and so forth, but eventually get used to it, not because that these are any good.

They might eventually get used to it but it will still kill some of them or cause various diseases. Getting used to something bad does not mean one will not get sick from it.

As per my current understanding, there?s no specific animal mentioned by name that is forbidden. Blood is not an animal, and along with meat, animals, fruits, vegetables, etc., all are generalized terms and not specific to any given name as such. We must carefully study, analyze and understand the contextual nature of all verses put together in which it speaks and to reason coherently, consistently and naturally as they occur. Therefore, why single out the word khinzeer to mean specifically a named animal pig rather that to deduce its meaning and usage as applied to all meat being generalized as ?ill-seeming?, which is also understood coherently and consistently in all other verses. Naturally then, in verse 560, humans don?t get transformed into pigs but are generalized to mean ?ill-seeming? beings/humans. Hence, insofar, I stand affirmative of all verses quoted earlier that contain the word khanzeer

The word "yad" used in Qur'aan means "hand" in one place and means "resources" in another place, and when used for The God, it is used metaphorically

373 Say "The bounty is in God's hand, He gives it to whom He chooses, and God is Encompassing, Knowledgeable."
567 And the Jews said "The hand of God is tied-down!"
4811 Those who pledge allegiance to you, are in-fact pledging allegiance to God; God's hand is above their hands.
5729 So that the followers of the Scripture should know that they have no power over God's grace, and that all grace is in God's hand.

Does The God have physical hands ??

1. Lion is an animal
2. You can turn into an animal, if you do not use your ability to reason

In these 2 sentences, the same word "animal" is used. The reader, however, can easily discern that in the first sentence, "animal" means a LITERAL animal, but in the 2nd sentence, "animal" is used METAPHORICALLY/FIGURATIVELY.

Same with the usage of "khinzeerin" in Qur'aan.

In 6145 the phrase "lahma khinzeerin" is used. According to rules of Arabic grammar, as explained by Someone and others multiple times, the way this phrase is written, "khinzeerin" in "lahma khinzeerin" cannot be an adjective for "lahma", but has to be a noun. So it cannot mean "illseeming meat" according to rules of Arabic grammar but has to mean meat of pig.

For "khinzeer" to be an adjective of "lahma" the phrase has to be as follows

1. "allahma alkhinzeerin" (both words have "al" before them)

OR

2. "lahmoun khinzeeroun" or "lahmou khinzeerou" (both words have the same ending "oun" or "ou")

In "lahma khinzeerin" as used in 6145, neither of these rules is satisfied. Both words do not have "al" at the beginning and both words do not have the same ending.

Also according to context, "lahma khinzeerin" is followed by "rijsun" which clearly is an adjective for "lahma khinzeerin". If in this phrase "khinzeerin" is an adjective of "lahma", then having another adjective "rijsun" immediately following it, and meaning the same is redundant.

It is just like saying

My black cat is black. OR
My black cat is dark coloured.

Does not make sense.

Proper would be "my cat is black", or "I have a black cat".

In 560 "khanazeer" is either literal or metaphorical. I have not made up my mind about that yet. The God does have the power to transform a human into a literal pig, just like He transformed a stick into a snake. On the other hand, the figurative meaning fits as well. I will need to do more research on that. The word "yad" in Qur'aan does not always mean "physical hand" as I have already mentioned above. Similarly "khinzeer" does not always have to mean the same everywhere. Its meaning will depend on the rules of Arabic grammar and the context.

Usually, the literal meaning is applied first to a word in an ayat, and if it fits then the literal meaning is taken, but if after applying the literal meaning it does not make sense, then the figurative meaning is taken. In addition to that, the rules of Arabic grammar have to be followed, and in 6145 according to the rules of Arabic grammar, and context, "lahma khinzeerin" clearly means "meat of pig" and makes perfect sense.

Regards,

Tanveer

[unknownuser]

SC,

You didn't respond to the following, please do

Main Entry FLESH the soft parts of the body of an animal and especially of a vertebrate; especially the parts composed chiefly of skeletal muscle as distinguished from visceral structures, bone, and integuments a fleshy plant part used as food the fleshy part of a fruit.

Main Entry VISCERAL/VISCUS an internal organ of the body; especially one (as the heart, liver, or intestine) located in the great cavity of the trunk proper.

Hmmm...lahma/flesh, doesn't necessarily have to pertain to meat, but can pertain to plants, vegetables, and fruits as well. According to the above definitions, viscera, is NOT flesh, hence, the liver, the intestines and kidneys, along with bone and fat, are all halal. What is your reply to this?

[unknownuser]

PEACE, TANVEER,

Hmmm...thought you pulled a Crater there for minute. wink

TANVEER So then they are not bad by nature, but pig meat is, for scientific studies have shown that pork consumption can kill people by cirrhosis and liver cancer.

6146 And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.

If the pig, a clawless quadruped, was/is bad/fasiqun/rijisun by nature, as you claim, why, then, were the Jews, prior to Al-Quran and, per ayat 6146, allowed to eat it?

I'm still waiting for you to answer this question.

[savage_carrot]

Peace Danish,

As per my current understanding, there?s no specific animal mentioned by name that is forbidden. Blood is not an animal, and along with meat, animals, fruits, vegetables, etc., all are generalized terms and not specific to any given name as such. We must carefully study, analyze and understand the contextual nature of all verses put together in which it speaks and to reason coherently, consistently and naturally as they occur. Therefore, why single out the word khinzeer to mean specifically a named animal pig rather that to deduce its meaning and usage as applied to all meat being generalized as ?ill-seeming?, which is also understood coherently and consistently in all other verses. Naturally then, in verse 560, humans don?t get transformed into pigs but are generalized to mean ?ill-seeming? beings/humans.

In your understanding, you think that because everything else is NOT named in particular, khinzeerin must NOT be the name of an animal as well? Okay.

After carefully studying, analyzing and understanding the contextual nature of all verses put together, reasoning coherently, consistenly and naturally, noticing grammar, definitions, sentence structure and research...it is the viable conclusion, in my understanding, that pig works fine. Ill seeming does NOT work for reasons stated previously. This is my understanding.

Everyone has a right to choose whatever understanding makes the most sense to them after looking at everything. After all, it is OUR responsibility to explain why we chose what we did...not anyone else's.

Is there anything wrong with the any of the above verses when read coherrently whilst keeping the pig aside, at least for now?

I would add, normally, one would try to work out what is wrong with pig before choosing another understanding. I have explained what is wrong in my previous posts while putting aside pig. I understand if you are pressed for time, we all are. Therefore, please forgive me for not repeating.

[unknownuser]

SC,

Don't forget to respond to the following posts

1. Posted Sat Sep 03, 2005 550 pm

2. Posted Sat Sep 03, 2005 928 pm

[unknownuser]

Peace all,

Meat in scientific terms is muscle. It could be smooth muscle or skeletal musle or cardiac muscle, but they are all muscle and hence included in meat. I would recommend you to open up a text book on Histology and verify that.

Having said that, walls of intestines are full of smooth muscle and thus meat includes intestines. Liver and kidneys are RICHLY supplied with blood vessels (including capillaries). Walls of blood vessels are full of smooth muscle, so liver and kidneys do contain a LARGE portion of meat, and it is almost impossible to separate the meat from the small non-meat portion of liver and kidneys, for the practical purposes of eating.

So lahma khinzeerin includes ALL muscle of pig, be it smooth muscle, skeletal muscle, or cardiac muscle.