Is Swine Hallal
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
SC,
Don't forget to respond to the following posts
-
Posted Sat Sep 03, 2005 550 pm
-
Posted Sat Sep 03, 2005 928 pm
-
-
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.
-
PB,
I would like you to address your inconsistent arguments, before I decide to respond to your repeated questions.
- 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.
- 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.
Was 6146 the ONLY restrictions on the Jews? Yes OR No?
What do you have to say to your INCONSISTENCY?
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?
What rants and exaggerations to MY point that blood is by nature haram TO EAT when it is OBVIOUS what that means?!!! Blood is by nature haram to eat BECAUSE IT IS NOT DEPENDENT ON IT ENTERING ANY STATE. Does this GET THROUGH or do I have to put it in YES OR NO like you finally got MY POINT regarding RESTRICTIONS?!? ALLAH has made BLOOD HARAM TO EAT. It is HARAM ALL THE TIME TO EAT roll Pig meat is fine to the pig. Blood is fine to the animal. When YOU want to eat it is when it's restricted. It's not going to start exploding fireworks on its own NOW IS IT? Do you EAT...blood transfusions?!? I just hope you have any sort of intellect OR maturity. Honesty is probably asking too much of you.
-
Peace Tanveer,
Your last post is very interesting, I did not know that...Thanks for the info.
-
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.
Pig meat was never allowed to Jews for eating as per 6145, because 6145 merely states a law for mankind without any chronology, and mankind includes Jews. Keep in mind that the Koran authenticates previous scriptures and supercedes it. So 6145 authenticates the restricted foods as mentioned in previous scriptures too.
Tanveermd has answered this multiple times in his different posts. For example
- FORBIDDEN FOOD FOR MANKIND
Given that 6145 lists food made haram for mankind, and that mankind includes Jews, "already dead", blood, "lahma khinzeerin", and "what is dedicated to other than Allah" is haram for Jews also.
6145 just factually states what is haram for mankind, including jews. There is no chronology in that statement. 6145 nowhere says "from this day onwards.......".
Qur'aan authenticates the previous scriptures
241 And believe in what I have sent down, authenticating what is already with you, and do not be the first to disbelieve in it! And do not purchase with My verses a cheap gain, and of Me you shall be aware.
297 Say "Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel, then know that he has sent it down into your heart by God's permission, authenticating what is already present, and a guide and good news for the believers."
33 He sent down to you the Scripture with truth, authenticating what is present with it; and He sent down the Torah and the Injeel.
Allah also clearly says that Qur'aan in addition to authenticating the previous scriptures, supersedes them also
551 And We have sent down to you the Scripture with truth, authenticating what is present of the Scripture and superseding it. So judge between them by what God has sent down, and do not follow their desires from what has come to you of the truth.
So when an ayat gives a factual information, like forbidden foods for mankind, it is authenticating what was in the previous scriptures, and superseding it. Factual statement about forbidden food in Qur'aan, therefore, means that the forbidden categories of food have been forbidden for mankind, throughout history. The only way you can say that those four categories of food were not forbidden for Jews before revelation of Qur'aan, is if there is another ayat in Qur'aan that says that explicitly.
Show me the ayat in Qur'aan that says that Allah DID NOT forbid to the Jews what is already dead, blood, lahma khinzeerin, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah".
This clearly establishes that the following four categories of food is forbidden for ENTIRE MANKIND, INCLUDING JEWS, and that restriction has ALWAYS been there
- Already dead
- Blood
- Lahma khinzeerin
- What is dedicated to other than Allah
Nothing can change that.
You yourself agreed to that in one of your previous posts, as brother Thor has mentioned
Priest Bokmei wrote
O.k., let me try it from this angle. You will agree that Al-Quran, per ayat 2185, was sent to all of mankind for guidance; there is no other book or books for mankinds guidance. Included in mankind are the Jews. I'm certain that you also agree with that. Now, although ayat 6147 does not mention the Jews specifically, ayat 6147 does mention what is haram for mankind--the Jews included, thus, the things made haram in ayat 6147 are haram for the Jews as well. I'm certain you must agree with this also. Also keep in mind that, it would be very cumbersome to list all that is halal in Al-Quran, hence, Allah, simply names what is haram and what is not haram is halal. With this in mind then there is no contradiction between ayats 6146-7 and 148 at all.and then a few posts later you repeatedly say
Priest Bokmei wrote
the Jews, were never forbidden, by Allah anyway, to eat it.PB, YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF. By saying that lahma khinzeerin is halal for Jews, and not forbidden for them, you are contradicting 6145 and YOURSELF (see the underlined portion of your statement above).
- ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR JEWS
6146 is a continuation of 6145, that specifies ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS of food, placed on Jews because of punishment for their rebellion.
The list of forbidden food for Jews, before revelation of Qur'aan, therefore, would be as follows per 6145 and 6146
- Already dead
- Blood
- Lahma khinzeerin
- What is dedicated to other than Allah
- All that have claws
- Fat of cattle and sheep except what is attached to back, entrails, or mixed with bone.
-
PLATINUM,
PBM 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?
6145 Say I do not find in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden for an eater to eat of except that it be what has died of itself, or blood poured forth, or flesh of swine-- for that surely is unclean-- or that which is a transgression, other than (the name of) Allah having been invoked on it; but whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring nor exceeding the limit, then surely your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.
646 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.
PLATINUM Pig meat was never allowed to Jews for eating as per 6145, because 6145 merely states a law for mankind without any chronology, and mankind includes Jews. Keep in mind that the Koran authenticates previous scriptures and supercedes it. So 6145 authenticates the restricted foods as mentioned in previous scriptures too.
No chronology?! Doesn't the word "made" refer to the past? Let me ask you a question. Did the Law of Moses come before or after Al-Quran? Hopefully, you will answer before and, if you do, then this shows a chronology of events ( the italicized part above shows chronology). Allah, per ayat 6146, tell us in part what Allah made haram for the Jews, relative to animals, in their Law....which precedes Al-Quran. The pig, is not a clawed animal.
Neither you, Savage or Tanveer, have made your case.
-
SC,
I would like you to address your inconsistent arguments, before I decide to respond to your repeated questions.
At a later date. Right now, we have much more pertinent and pressing issues to deal with. Answer the following posts or simply concede that you cannot defend your assertion that lahma khinzerin means the flesh of pigs.
-
Posted Sat Sep 03, 2005 550 pm
-
Posted Sat Sep 03, 2005 928 pm
What rants and exaggerations to MY point that blood is by nature haram TO EAT when it is OBVIOUS what that means?!!! Blood is by nature haram to eat BECAUSE IT IS NOT DEPENDENT ON IT ENTERING ANY STATE. Does this GET THROUGH or do I have to put it in YES OR NO like you finally got MY POINT regarding RESTRICTIONS?!? ALLAH has made BLOOD HARAM TO EAT.
Relax, calm down.
-
Btw, just why is blood haram to eat?
-
Stating that blood is haram to eat, does not make blood, by nature, bad/fasiqun/rijisun which is what you said previously, to wit
-
Tell you what, go to Al-Quran, and tell us what thing, by nature, Allah created bad/fasiqun/rijisun, thanks. The following ayat contradicts your's and Tanveer's notion of some things being created as "bad";
327 He Who has made everything which He has created most good
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?!?
But it is clear that you have rescinded that comment. D
It is HARAM ALL THE TIME TO EAT Pig meat is fine to the pig. Blood is fine to the animal. When YOU want to eat it is when it's restricted. It's not going to start exploding fireworks on its own NOW IS IT? Do you EAT...blood transfusions?!? I just hope you have any sort of intellect OR maturity. Honesty is probably asking too much of you.
Whether you eat blood or blood or take it directly into the blood stream via transfusion, the end result is the same....blood is still in the blood stream. I want to see you refute that. lol
-
-
I would like you to address your inconsistent arguments, before I decide to respond to your repeated questions.
At a later date.
roll Right. This is the same guy who wants us to accept HIS argument full of inconsistencies NOW.
Right now, we have much more pertinent and pressing issues to deal with.
Right NOW we have YOUR pertinent and pressing inconsistency issues to deal with as that's what your argument is BASED on.
Answer the following posts or simply concede that you cannot defend your assertion that lahma khinzerin means the flesh of pigs.
Answer the refutations posted to YOU time and time again OR simply concede that you cannot defend your assertion that lahma khinzerin is not the flesh of pigs.
-
SC,
LOL! Yup, here we go again, rant, rave, bluff, then duck, cut and run. You don't have anything, SC and you know it. What's more you've lost this debate, because you can no longer field a defense for you misunsderstanding of lahma khinzerin. You will not answer those posts for the same reason reason that you wouldn't answer the 15 questions I asked you to, because to do so, would further expose your error. D
You have not practiced honesty in this debate. Those who refuse to practice honesty only continue to mislead themselves for certain and others maybe.
-
Peace Nadia,
A small but pertinent point Blood transfusion is never given for the heck of it, or as a daily routine. It is always given in a state of emergency, because of severe anemia that is life threatening. So it would come under "forced out of need", according to 2173, therefore not being haram.
2173 He has only forbidden for you what is already dead, and the blood, and the meat of pig, 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.
Regards,
Tanveer
-
PB,
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?!?
It is clear that we are talking about dietary restrictions is it NOT? What food you EAT? That is why the sentence is included in the above that is underlined and bolded, it means by nature bad/haram to EAT as it is NOT dependent on entering any state. I'm sorry if this sentence confused you.
Whether you eat blood or blood or take it directly into the blood stream via transfusion, the end result is the same....blood is still in the blood stream. I want to see you refute that.
Is this another example of shooting yourself in the foot? Are you saying that we should NOT have blood transfusions because in reality we are EATING BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS? Are blood transfusions DONE IN TIMES OF NECESSITY? Or whenever YOU feel like it? roll
LOL! Yup, here we go again, rant and rave, then duck, cut and run. You don't have anything, SC and you know it. What's more you've lost this debate, because you can no longer field a defense for you misunsderstanding of lahma khinzerin. You will not answer those posts for the same reason reason that you wouldn't answer the 15 questions I asked you to, because to do so, would further expose your error.
You have honest practiced honesty in this debate. Those who refuse to practice honesty only continue to mislead themselves for certain and others maybe.
And here we have another example of PB's periodic morale boosting events. The reader can easily discern for themselves the list of questions and refutations that have been evaded by PB. It is truly an impressive array. Why don't you address your glaring INCONSISTENCY now that you have had your rants off your chest?
-
Peace Tanveer,
We posted at the same time, I think the same...
-
Peace Platinum,
Thank you for your comments. It is obvious that 6145 has NO CHRONOLOGY whatsoever.
Please read all the posts under this thread and it will become obvious to you, if it not already is, that me and Nadia have refuted ALL of PB's points multiple times. He has been eluding and evading ALL the questions put forth to him multiple times by me and Nadia, and has refused to answer them despite multiple, repeated requests, because that would expose his flawed and faulty logic and his erroneous understanding and position. That is a clear indication of disrespect, discourteousness, and dishonesty and proves the untenability of his arguments.
Look forward to hearing more from you in this forum,
Regards,
Tanveer
-
SC,
I'm still waiting for your response to the following. What's the matter...pig got your tongue again? Please address the issue, thanks.
-
Posted Sat Sep 03, 2005 550 pm
-
Posted Sat Sep 03, 2005 928 pm
If the claw don't fit...you must acquit. lol
-
-
PB,
I'm still waiting for your response to the following. What's the matter...pig got your tongue again? Please address the issue, thanks.
Har de har har...take a course in humour while you are responding to YOUR glaring INCONSISTENCIES that I asked YOU to address BEFORE you asked me jack.
Posted Fri Sep 02, 2005 319 pm
-
Peace Platinum,
Thank you for your comments. It is obvious that 6145 has NO CHRONOLOGY whatsoever.
Please read all the posts under this thread and it will become obvious to you, if it not already is, that me and Nadia have refuted ALL of PB's points multiple times. He has been eluding and evading ALL the questions put forth to him multiple times by me and Nadia, and has refused to answer them despite multiple, repeated requests, because that would expose his flawed and faulty logic and his erroneous understanding and position. That is a clear indication of disrespect, discourteousness, and dishonesty and proves the untenability of his arguments.
Look forward to hearing more from you in this forum,
Regards,
Tanveer
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.
Oh, so when Allah says..."made" in ayat 6146, He wasn't referring to something which He had prior to Al-Quran, imposed on the the Jews for their transgression, is this your position? So, is it also your position that, the Jews, in addition to not being allowed to eat what is listed in ayats 2173 and 53, they cannot eat animals with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep as well? Is this your's, SC's, and Platinum's position?
-
It is obvious that 6145 has NO CHRONOLOGY whatsoever.