New reading of V 6:145
-
If the fat of pig or the intestines of the pig are haram for the eater, why , then, did Allah not specifically state that? We both have agreed that Allah knows how to say shahm, lahma, hawaya, correct? However, Allah, only says lahma khinzerin is haram, does Allah not say what He means? Clearly, as you pointed out to JM, Allah, per ayat 6146, refers to shahm and hawaya distinctly from lahma, correct?
The God forbad for the Jews the fat of cattle and sheep as a punishment for their rebellion. He didn't forbad the meat. Since the meat is not prohibited then the digestive system cannot be prohibited. the muscles are developed by the digestion of food. If there is a risk of disease after the consumption of the meat, this is also valid for the intestines, liver....
The Reading is a guide and a criterion for those who use their reason.
-
blood is a tremendous source of infectious and potentially fatal pathogens i.e. HIV/Aids and Hepatitis, hence, it needs to be avoided as a source of food.
Carrion, blood and the meat of pig represent several degree of infectious and they are not at the same level. One cannot disregard one of them because one is less potentially infectious than others. The God is the best knower not human conjecture.
About the word rijsun which I understand as unhealthty, unpure for the eater that doesn't mean when the eater eat Carrion or blood or the meat of pig , he should have the serious problem immediately because they are 3 sources of infectious with several degrees. The God whishes to purify us completely.
-
PEACE, MARIE,
PBM If the fat of the pig or the intestines of the pig are haram for the eater, why , then, did Allah not specifically state that? We both have agreed that Allah knows how to say shahm, lahma, hawaya, correct? However, Allah, only says lahma khinzerin is haram, does Allah not say what He means? Clearly, as you pointed out to JM, Allah, per ayat 6146, refers to shahm and hawaya distinctly from lahma, correct?
The God forbad for the Jews the fat of cattle and sheep as a punishment for their rebellion. He didn't forbad the meat. Since the meat is not prohibited then the digestive system cannot be prohibited. the muscles are developed by the digestion of food. If there is a risk of disease after the consumption of the meat, this is also valid for the intestines, liver....
You're not making any sense, Marie. The shahm was not made haram due to any health/digestive concerns, it was made haram ONLY as a punishment. Aren't we allowed to eat shahm? Your above response is not only pure conjecture and self-contradictory, but totally misunderstands why the shahm was made haram in the first place...as punishment.
The Reading is a guide and a criterion for those who use their reason.
I totally agree, however, your above comment contradicts your understanding that..."The Reading is a guide and a criterion for those who use their reason".
-
PEACE, MARIE,
PBM blood is a tremendous source of infectious and potentially fatal pathogens i.e. HIV/Aids and Hepatitis, hence, it needs to be avoided as a source of food.
Carrion, blood and the meat of pig represent several degree of infectious and they are not at the same level. One cannot disregard one of them because one is less potentially infectious than others. The God is the best knower not human conjecture. About the word rijsun which I understand as unhealthty, unpure for the eater that doesn't mean when the eater eat Carrion or blood or the meat of pig , he should have the serious problem immediately because they are 3 sources of infectious with several degrees. The God whishes to purify us completely.
Well, then you are stating that the lahm of pig, unlike other animals, is a carrier of infectious and potentially fatal diseases. Is this your position now? If it is, then, the lahm of pig, intrinsically, is rijsun, however, time and again you've rejected this notion. So, which is it? Is there something intrinsically wrong with/bad with the lahm of pig or not?
I'm still waiting for a definitive definition for lahm, that is, how you are defining it.
-
Salam PB,
- As I said previously, if any part of an animal becomes infected then the whole animal, to me anyway, is infected, hence, it becomes lahm khinzerin--ill-seeming/that which I see as bad.
We agree that the consumption of any part of the animal whatever he is dead or sick/ill is unhealthy for the eater.
However, the God specifies that it is forbiden for us "lahm alkhinzeer" and "almayta/dead animal" instead of lahm almayta/the meat of the dead animal.
If the God means the whole ill-animal, then we should read only "alkhinzeer" without lahm in the same way than almayta wich is without any precision.
Consequently, lahm alkhinzeer cannot mean nor the whole animal, neither ill seeming meat because the consumption of the whole animal whatever he is dead or sick is unhealthy for the eater.You insist that lhma alkhinzeer is ill-seeming which is not supported by the Reading and based only on conjecture. If the Reading is your criterion then you can see clearly that the God uses a specific word to mean ill/sick.
This is just common sense/intellect. One of the major problems with your position is this, if the meat of pig is not intrinsically bad by its created nature, then why is it rijsun for the eater to eat it?
In the light of the Reading, permitted for us all the animals of the livestock, except what is specifically forbidden in the Book (51)
We are given for examples of these quadrupeds (6143-144)
- the sheeps
- the goats
- the camels
- the cows
They are herbivores and ruminants contrary to the pig which is omnivorous and non ruminant.
We have to consider these four examples as a criterion for us. The desease of Croswell-Jacob is a good example.The God created the pig as omnivorous non ruminant contrary to the the sheeps, goats, camels and cows. The God prohibited the meat of pig for us because its consuption can be a potential source of desease for human which is proved scientifically in the same way for the blood.
Now feel free to accept it or not.
To make it clear one of all
Alkhinzeer = the whole animal
lahm alkhinzeer is not the whole animal
Why the God doesn't forbad the fat of pig, do refer to the scientific study about the fat of pig.
No comment avout your understanding of 55 because you use only a part of some verse to fit your point and you neglect the whole Reading. To you is your approch and to me is mine.
the muscles are developed by the digestion of food. If there is a risk of disease after the consumption of the meat, this is also valid for the intestines, liver....
Sorry for the confusion, the quote above concerns only the prohibition of the pig's meat. You asked me about intestines, liver..of the pig et it was my response for you. If there is some infectious germs in the meat, it forwarded through the digective system. I hope it's clear for you.
The source of desease is due to the infectious germ contained in the meat of pig, the runing blood and dead animal.
The diet of some animals make their meat unhealthy for us because it may contain some infectious germ. What is your problem with this?I'm still waiting for a definitive definition for lahm, that is, how you are defining it.
Lahm = meat.
Salam
-
You need to Quranically refute the above Marie, otherwise, your argument is gone. Looking forward to your reply.
I have no time to repeat to you all quranic arguments which destroy your understanding.
Take much time to read carefully what is already said about it.
I leave you with peace
-
Fine, so meat excludes fat, bone, and hoof material, thus, these are halal as food...is this your position? If so, then how do these things escape the "infectious germ" contamination, which you claim is inherent to the meat of pigs?
PB u are getting stupid by the minute. How do u know that the shit and piss you hold in u doesnt infect your whole body? Comon man use some common sense. And if you are like this, i cant even imagine what those two people you mention that "guided' you to this understand must be like.
-
- JM, wrote We have no direct knowledge of whether or not God forbade the Jews to eat pig. The torah may have been altered, so, it cannot be regarded as a reliable source of knowledge.
You are distorting what I have said, by quoting only a part of my post.
Yes, we have no direct knowledge, but (as I have explained it) we have indirect knowledge, by combining and , and reminding the grammatical rule.
See http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4031&start=625#55493
And http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4031&start=625#55205Your statements have been refuted again and again.
I will waste no more time with you.