Alkhineer is a noun in the light of the Reading

[marie]

Salam Ali Omar,

You see, it is not a question of equality in the matter itself; it is a question of similarity in a certain aspect.

Your view about the similarity is purely subjective and the Reading doesn't support it.

Here God mentions a few objects in general terms that are similar to on another in this particular aspect. Action is specific but all objects are in general, no specific terms. It says that which is already dead meaning any creature that is already dead, it says running blood meaning blood from any creature, it says food dedicated to other than God meaning any creature or others dedicated to God.
If God said and the pig it would not be just any creature it would be a specific type of creature, and the terms therefore not in harmony with each other as in the other cases.

Purely subjective. The criterion is inside the Reading itself.

The common point is clearly stated in 6145, both these prohibited food are unpure for the eater.
The God used Aw/or (6145) and wa/and (16115, 2173) interchangeably to enumerate these prohibited foods.

As I stated before, you cannot draw any interpretation based only on one verse. To get a full picture, you should to consider the whole Reading and all arguments based only on the Reading and not guessing work.

By the way, I find it more interesting to look at dangers of meat than dangers of pork on the Internet.

FM
51. O you who believe, honour your contracts. Made lawful for you are all the animals of the livestock, except that which is being recited to you, and what you are not allowed to hunt of the game while you are under restriction. God decrees as He pleases.

A. Shabir
51 O You who have chosen to be graced with belief! Fulfill your pledges and obligations. Permitted for you is the flesh of every beast that eats plants, except what is specifically forbidden in the Book. Allah has ordained that all hunting is prohibited during Hajj. Verily, Allah Ordains as He deems fit.

The criterion concerning the animals of the livestock is also given in the Reading (6142-6144)

Just after, the God specifies what is specifically forbidden from the animals of the livestock (baheematu al-anAAami) which is lahm alkhinzeer (6145, 16115, 2173).

Regards

[unknownuser]

PEACE, MARIE,

You continue to ignore the evidence. Al-Quran totally supports his analysis, because if lahma khinzeer was/is referring to a species of animal and is unpure for the eater to eat, when then, are you going to provide the concrete Quranic evidence as to WHY it's unpure for the eater to eat? You have yet to do this and, until you do, you are only conjecturing/saying things of Allah of which you have no knowledge/certitude.

You can go back forth about the actual meaning of "aw" (demonstrating that their is doubt in your position), however, to date, neither you nor your supporters, have explained away why--when ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116 are taken together, they totally obliterate any such notion that the pig is haram. When are you going to explain those ayats away? These ayats are CONCLUSIVE as opposed to "aw" argument which is not.

Ayat 51 says...animals, plural, are haram and not an animal from among among the animals ( will you stop twisting stuff, my God?), so, what are the other haram animals which are unpure for the eater to eat? I hope you will also keep in mind that, lahma khinzeer, if one wishes to argue that it is referring to the animal pig, isn't referring to the entire pig, but only its flesh, hence, your interpretation that it means the pig in its entirety contradicts how Allah specifies things. When Allah, per ayat 6146, made an entire species of animals haram, those with claws, and a specific part of others, the fat, nowhere has Allah made this distinction with the pig. Lahma Khinzeer does not equal the entire animal, yet, ayat 51, is referring to animals in their entirety and not their parts, hence, the pig cannot be what is being discussed in that ayat 51.

The part which says..."eats plants", is an EXTRAPOLATION/CONJECTURE on the part of Shabbir or whoever ([please post the dictionary which defines beasts as those who only plants, please.), and is an attempt to explain away ayats 4160, 55, and 6146. He, of course, as with you, fails to do this. He and you, because of your Judeo-Christian indoctrination, per ayat 51, did exactly what Yusef Ali, due to his Judeo-Christian indoctrination, did with the following ayat

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).

Thufr, does not mean undivided hoof, but claw. None of the definitions I have in Arabic define thufr as hoof, for if it did, then that would mean that sheep amd oxen, along with their fat, would have been haram, because those animals have hooves as does the pig.

Hopefully, you will at last provide your irrefutable evidence why the pig, according to your logic, is haram. Also, when are you going to take ayats 4160, 55, and 6146, on their own, and explain them away? Your "aw" and "ruminants" arguments are inadequate to this task. Let's see you prove how the pig can be haram based on those ayats. Of course you will continue to ignore the aforementioned two questions, because there is simply no way that you can do it, hence, the absolute disengenuousness of your continuing to assert that pig is haram, based on your other misunderstanding of "aw". Is this proof soon forthcoming or what? Please respect the following ayat

2124 Or have they taken for worship (other) gods besides him? Say, "Bring your convincing proof this is the Message of those with me and the Message of those before me." But most of them know not the Truth, and so turn away.

Looking forward to your reply.

[jonny_k]

This is not the issue. I've stated at least 7 times now that khinzeer, in the Arabic language, means pig, however, khinzeer, in the Arabic language, also means--"that which I see as bad/ill-seeming". The question which arise is--which definition does Allah use in His Quran. It cannot mean the animal pig, because ayats 4160, 51, 55, and 6146 rejects any such notion.

Khi- Salam. Well isnt pig meat "that which I see as bad/ill-seeming"? It is part of it so while other bad seeming animals cld also be included, pig is also. As for the verses quoted above i should remind you "pig meat is BY NO MEANS good food"!!!

If this were the case, why then, are billions of people today (and in the past) eating the pig with no health problems at all? Your response does not hold up to the actual evidence. Please read Danish's posts concerning the so-called health issues of the pig (click on to his name under "profile" and read his comments).

Khi- This is not correct. How can you say this when it's a proven fact pig meat greatly increases heart disease because of saturated fat? You are welcome to search the net for articles. Then there are adfditonal parasites like the trichinea found in that meat but even if removed the sutoxin remains a slow poison. Also as i said the pig is one of the most dirty animals on the earth. The meat conatins all kinds of harmful diseases and germs which even when cooked do not necessarily disappear completely. There are even many people in the world who eat dogs and do not have health problems but this doies not automatically mean that the meat is healthy. GOD Bless!

[unknownuser]

Peace be upon yuo all,

Why is rat meat not prohibited?

Or poisouness snake?

[unknownuser]

PEACE, IMDKHIZAR,

Khi- Salam. Well isnt pig meat "that which I see as bad/ill-seeming"? It is part of it so while other bad seeming animals cld also be included, pig is also. As for the verses quoted above i should remind you "pig meat is BY NO MEANS good food"!!!

The ayat has been erroneously translated as meat of pig, hence, your confusion. Tell you what, examine the folowing ayats and then tell me how it is possible that pig is haram, thanks

4160 For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from Allah's Way;-

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.

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.

6146 For those who followed the Jewish Law, We forbade every (animal) with claws, 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).

PBM If this were the case, why then, are billions of people today (and in the past) eating the pig with no health problems at all? Your response does not hold up to the actual evidence. Please read Danish's posts concerning the so-called health issues of the pig (click on to his name under "profile" and read his comments).

Khi- This is not correct. How can you say this when it's a proven fact pig meat greatly increases heart disease because of saturated fat? You are welcome to search the net for articles.

Butter, and red meats in general, also have the same issues. So what?

Then there are adfditonal parasites like the trichinea found in that meat but even if removed the sutoxin remains a slow poison.

I work in hospital for the past 20 years and not once was anybody admitted for trichinosis. Tell, me how many reported case of trichinosis have been reported in the U.S.? Beef can also become infected with the trichinella worm, hence, your claim that trichinosis is why the pig is haram, is a canard.

Also as i said the pig is one of the most dirty animals on the earth.

Yeah...as YOU say, but not science and experience.

The meat conatins all kinds of harmful diseases and germs which even when cooked do not necessarily disappear completely. There are even many people in the world who eat dogs and do not have health problems but this doies not automatically mean that the meat is healthy. GOD Bless!

As Idol pointed out, why aren't rats haram? What is more filthy than them? You have not proven your assertion.

[Ali_Omar]

Dear Marie,

I fully agree with you that there are no coincidences in the quran, therefore we should take care in understanding it.
It may well be that I jump to conclusions, but I try to keep an open mind and to see things from all angles. Therefore any thoughts not in conformity with my own opinions, at any one time, are welcomed. D

6.145 can be read such that all the food mentioned are ?impure for the eater?.

Now, looking carefully at the text it shows that the first thing mentioned is ?carrion?. This is understandably something to avoid, as we do not know whether the animal died from a disease or, due to an illness, died from other causes.
A sick animal could be weak, and thereby an easy target for carnivorous animals. It could more easily be prone to accidents, and so on. Anyway, it died due to reasons outside of our control.
Prohibition is understandable on the grounds that it could be a health risk.

Concerning blood, it says ?blood that pours out?, meaning it is running or flowing. Compare this to ?running water?. When you drink running water you drink directly from the source, you don?t put it in a container and/or treat it in any way, because than it is not ?running? water any more.
Concerning blood it is probably the same way, meaning blood directly from the source, i.e. raw blood, not cooked, fried or treated in any way, because than it would no longer be ?pouring? blood.shock
Fresh blood directly from the source would contain any unclean matters, bacteria, etc. contained in the animal.
Prohibition is understandable on the grounds that it could be a health risk.

Concerning ?khinzeerin?, no conditions are mentioned, so that ?khinzeerin? is always bad for us, no matter what.
If this is pointing to ?pork? it means that in whatever way we treat the flesh it is bad for us.
The most common problem in meats from omnivorous animals is the ?trichinosis?. But, this is not dangerous for us if the meat is treated properly. I.e. thoroughly cooked or fried.
In fact, trichinosis are completely wiped out at cooking temperatures higher than 150F(65C), or frozen at -22F(-30C) for 25 hours or -5F(-20C) for 25 days.
But, as someone said ?If you are not sure, then freeze the pork in -22F(-30C) for a month, cook it at 170F(77C) for two hours, throw away the inedible dried out rib and eat a salad instead.? lol
Prohibition is not understandable on the grounds that it could be a health risk.

However, any raw meat, undercooked meat, or meat that is contaminated in any way, could mean a health risk to us, and the prohibition is understandable.

If someone tells you "Do not listen to Jews or Muslims or bishops or Buddhists or Hindus."
Don?t the bishops seem a bit out of place in the picture? It goes ?general?, ?general?, ?specific?, ?general?, ?general?.

Same goes for ?khinzeerin? if it means one specific type of animal. It is just out of place. ?

Maybe, like you say, my views are subjective, and I would gladly change them, but only on grounds of reason, not because someone says so.
Therefore please convince me.

Regards

Ali

[marie]

Salam Ali Omar,

Concerning khinzeerin, no conditions are mentioned, so that khinzeerin is always bad for us, no matter what.

Can I ask you a favour?
There is no need to pronouce the vowel at the end of the word khinzeer lol There is only khinzeer (6145) or alkhinzeer (16115, 2173) with the article (AL) called alif attaAAreef in arabic like baqar (cattle) or albaqar (the cattle).

The most common problem in meats from omnivorous animals is the trichinosis. But, this is not dangerous for us if the meat is treated properly. I.e. thoroughly cooked or fried.

Your reasoning doesn't hold water because one can say the same thing about the blood (black pudding) and so on..
This point was discussed lengthily in others thread, it is not necessary to repeat it in this thread.

If someone tells you "Do not listen to Jews or Muslims or bishops or Buddhists or Hindus."
Dont the bishops seem a bit out of place in the picture? It goes general, general, specific, general, general.

This is only you own interpretation about 'AW/OR", what you consider as specific or general is only subjective. In other word, what is already dead can be considered as specific in the same way for corruptly dedicated to other than God and so...

The common points in the light of the Reading can be summurized in two points 1)what is mentionned (6145) is a prohibited food which can be eaten if one is forced by dire need without being deliberate and without transgressing and 2) not pure.
Moreover, the God used aw/or and wa/and interchangeably for them (6145, 16115, 2173).

The God prohibited to the "allatheena hadooh" in 6146 all that have claws/hoof and the fat of the cattle, where is the problem?

Why "AW/OR" is used in 6145 instead WA/and like in 16115, 2173?
I invite you to read 6145 together

6145. Say I do not find in what is inspired to me forbidden to a one eater to eat except that it be already dead, or running blood, or the meat of pig, it"the prohibited food" is foul/unhealthy/unpure; or what is corruptly dedicated to other than God. Whoever is forced without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.

Qul la ajidu feema oohiyailayya muharraman AAala taAAimin yatAAamuhu illa an yakoona maytatan aw daman masfoohan aw lahmakhinzeerin fa-innahu rijsun aw fisqan ohilla lighayri Allahibihi famani idturra ghayra baghin wala AAadinfa-inna rabbaka ghafoorun raheemun

"Yakoon" refers to some thing in a singular form which is here the prohibited food. This is why the letter AW/OR is used 1) dead or 2) running blood or 3) the meat of pig or 4) what is corruptly dedicated to other than God.

"Yakoon" is common to the four propositions in the same way than "fa-innahu rijsun".
The letter AW/or between these four propositions implies "aw yakoona /or that it be 1) or that it be 2) or that it be 3) or that it be 4).

Like "yakoon", "innahu" refers to some thing in a singular form and refers to each of these four propositions individually, this is why "innahu" (hu--> singular form) is usud instead of "innahum" (hum---> plural form)
"Innahu" is in agreement with "yakoon", both refer to the four propositions individually, this is why aw/or is used.

For more information about "fa-innahu rijsun", I invite you to read this thread "New reading of V 6145

Maybe, like you say, my views are subjective, and I would gladly change them, but only on grounds of reason, not because someone says so.

I agree but until now you refuse to consider all the argument based both on reason and internal structure of the Reading to get a better understanding of 6145, 16115, 2173. You base your reasonning on a wrong understanding of the letter "AW" to build your theory.

Therefore please convince me.

I don't seek to convince anyone on this forum, only to share my understanding. My discussion with you and other members helps me to improve my own understanding and seek all the arguments in the light of the Reading. I'm greatful to you all )

Regards

[unknownuser]

PEACE, MARIE,

You continue to ignore the evidence. Al-Quran totally supports his analysis, because if lahma khinzeer was/is referring to a species of animal and is unpure for the eater to eat, when then, are you going to provide the concrete Quranic evidence as to WHY it's unpure for the eater to eat? You have yet to do this and, until you do, you are only conjecturing/saying things of Allah of which you have no knowledge/certitude.

You can go back forth about the actual meaning of "aw" (demonstrating that their is doubt in your position), however, to date, neither you nor your supporters, have explained away why--when ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116 are taken together, they totally obliterate any such notion that the pig is haram. When are you going to explain those ayats away? These ayats are CONCLUSIVE as opposed to "aw" argument which is not.

Ayat 51 says...animals, plural, are haram and not an animal from among among the animals ( will you stop twisting stuff, my God?), so, what are the other haram animals which are unpure for the eater to eat? I hope you will also keep in mind that, lahma khinzeer, if one wishes to argue that it is referring to the animal pig, isn't referring to the entire pig, but only its flesh, hence, your interpretation that it means the pig in its entirety contradicts how Allah specifies things. When Allah, per ayat 6146, made an entire species of animals haram, those with claws, and a specific part of others, the fat, nowhere has Allah made this distinction with the pig. Lahma Khinzeer does not equal the entire animal, yet, ayat 51, is referring to animals in their entirety and not their parts, hence, the pig cannot be what is being discussed in that ayat 51.

The part which says..."eats plants", is an EXTRAPOLATION/CONJECTURE on the part of Shabbir or whoever ([please post the dictionary which defines beasts as those who only plants, please.), and is an attempt to explain away ayats 4160, 55, and 6146. He, of course, as with you, fails to do this. He and you, because of your Judeo-Christian indoctrination, per ayat 51, did exactly what Yusef Ali, due to his Judeo-Christian indoctrination, did with the following ayat

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).

Thufr, does not mean undivided hoof, but claw. None of the definitions I have in Arabic define thufr as hoof, for if it did, then that would mean that sheep amd oxen, along with their fat, would have been haram, because those animals have hooves as does the pig.

Hopefully, you will at last provide your irrefutable evidence why the pig, according to your logic, is haram. Also, when are you going to take ayats 4160, 55, and 6146, on their own, and explain them away? Your "aw" and "ruminants" arguments are inadequate to this task. Let's see you prove how the pig can be haram based on those ayats. Of course you will continue to ignore the aforementioned two questions, because there is simply no way that you can do it, hence, the absolute disengenuousness of your continuing to assert that pig is haram, based on your other misunderstanding of "aw". Is this proof soon forthcoming or what? Please respect the following ayat

2124 Or have they taken for worship (other) gods besides him? Say, "Bring your convincing proof this is the Message of those with me and the Message of those before me." But most of them know not the Truth, and so turn away.

Looking forward to your reply.

[unknownuser]

PEACE, ALI OMAR and ALL,

Marie, due to her pride (dissatisfaction with the truth) and her deeply engrained prejuduce of the pig, she is unlikely to budge from her superstitious ( maintaining a position despite the evidence to the contrary) notion that the pig is haram. The bottomline is this, until she can take the following ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116, together and on their own, and prove how the pig can possibly be haram, then she is being absolutely dishonest in her claim that the pig, according to Allah and His Quran, is haram. These ayats CONCLUSIVELY prove that the pig is NOT nor has EVER been haram to mankind and this is why she continues to ignore my request to disprove this claim by me. Both the "lahma khinzeer" and "aw" arguments can be counter-argued, but where is the counter-argument for the aforementioned four ayats? You see, Ali, she can haggle about the meaning of "aw" and "lahma khinzeer" all day, but she cannot haggle about these four ayats.

PERTINENT AYATS

4160 For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from Allah's Way;-

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...

6146 For those who followed the Jewish Law, We forbade every (animal) with claws, 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).

16116 But say not - for any false thing that your tongues may put forth,- "This is lawful, and this is forbidden," so as to ascribe false things to Allah. For those who ascribe false things to Allah, will never prosper.

Peace.

[Ali_Omar]

Dear Marie,

Khinzeer of course, I fully agree. Going too fast sometimes, should think more, talk less. oops

Your reasoning doesn't hold water because one can say the same thing about the blood (black pudding) and so on..

Exactly!
And this is the next obstacle. It seems like nobody consider what is stated in this verse, just bluntly accept ?blood is rijsun?. The verse doesn?t say that at all, it says flowing, or running blood. It does not say that blood, as such, is forbidden!
Actually, if blood is treated properly, there is nothing wrong with it!

The quran specifically mention blood that is pouring out, or running, i.e. not treated in any way, but raw, straight from the source.

We are eating blood every time we eat meat, like beef etc. it is just not running blood, it is treated, namely cooked or fried, before we eat it. Even in seafood there is blood, and birds.
It is double standard to say that blood in large amounts is ?rijsun? but in small amounts it is not, and God does not keep double standards.
This is the reason why the verse states specifically ?running blood?.

I am really sorry, but your point concerning ?aw? vs. ?wa? does not hold water. It can be used interchangeably. It depends on the sentence.

?You should not eat A or B or C or D.............?
?You should avoid eating A and B and C and D.......?

Different connecting words, same meaning. ?

I have put out one single question that everyone seems to be overlooking, so I post it again for the third time

Can the Arabic word, or root of khinzeer, mean something besides ?pig?, or can it not?

If the answer is NO then there is no more to discuss on this matter, if it can, then there must be something bad about the pigs meat compared to all other types of meat, because 6.145 states that khinzeer is rijsun.

Does anybody know?

Or should we keep on turning over the same stones?

I appreciate your inputs Marie, but there are obvious flaws in your line of reasoning, so, before we go any further, can you, or anyone else, answer the question I have now put forward for the third time?

Regards

Ali Omar

[unknownuser]

Hello PBM, peace be with you

I totally agree with Maria, it is the meat of the pig that the true Muslims should not eat unless forced to eat it, the arabic word is very clear ?AL KHANZIR?, this has nothing to do with all the other over the moon explanation regarding other verses where the word ?LAHM? was used, I?m actually surprised on how some Muslims try to extend things very far beyond comprehension, first of all when Allah uses the word ?Harram? ?? to state a law to the true believers, any word that will follow must be clear, this is the case of stating a law, in the case of stating a story like the verse 4160

(160)

-> The verse never mentioned the khanzir, neither it is telling us any new laws, rather is telling us a fact, that For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (things) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from Allah's Way;-

-> can you see mate that I replaced the word (food) with (Things), I could not see anything in the arbic verse that imply it was food that was the subject of the Tahreem matter, rather anything, read it again bro if you read Arabic, what was good for the jews then became forbidden as a result of their iniquity, may also include actions, like not sleeping with their wives during the whole period of fasting, it can be anything really, but it can not be food explicitly, more over you want to extend it further and make it like it is the meat of the pig that was good for them then became forbidden due to their iniquity

The second verse you posted 55, again I see nothing explicit about Lahm Al Khanzir, it is also a two way between the Muslims and Ahal Al Kitab, i.e. This day, all good things are made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them...

But you see how the verse started with ?ALL GOOD THINGS ARE MADE LAWFUL TO US?,, now those good things is a general statement and whatever will be lawful should not violates this general rule, so if the verse continued saying, their food is made lawful to us, then why you take it ?all their food??, and even if we will take it as such, then all their good food that should not violate the general rule ?ONLY GOOD THINGS ARE MADE LAWFUL TO US?, you see those good things, ARE MADE, at the same time we ARE WARNED not to eat Lahm Al Khanzir in about 4 different locations, the argument that Khanzir does not mean the pig, is absolutely baseless, because it is the common Arabic word for the pig and this what will prevail, the word should not cause any confusion from the first place, I agree that there are many words that can cause a lot of confusion like ?SOLB and TRA?IB?, but that was not a statement for a new law that we should be aware and are warned to commit it,

But my question again mate, what is in the above verse that talks about Lahm Al Khanzir?, I could not find anything in the Arabic language that can imply talking about it

Now science has proved that lahm al khanzir can be really harmful to humans, it is the nature of the animal itself, I?m not going to get into this, I know it has to be exhausted already, but I know for certain that when Allah is forbidding anything or allowing anything, He will be doing it with great wisdom and the absolute knowledge in why this should be the case, and science proved Allah 100% right regarding the environment of the pigs world and its effect on humans

(5)

Moving on to the third verse 6146, after I read it many times and many explanations as well my own understanding based on what I read, I could understand what you want to say by this verse !! do you mean that Lahm Al Khanzir is not listed in the verse as an item of food that was forbidden on the jews?

(146)

Come on bro, the Lahm Al Kanzir is listed for sure, you see the verse is clearly saying the followings were forbidden

1. Every (animal) with claws (Meat and Fat)
2. The fat of the ox and the sheep (Fat Only)

So do you agree that the pig is an animal with a claw?

I reckon it is, moving to the last verse 16116

(116)

-> mate, I have to say, this verse may be talking about you, you are possibly trying to say that Marie and Me are trying to forbid something that is lawful to us, but we did not forbid anything, it was Allah who said DO NOT EAT LAHM AL KHANZIR, and I see KHANZIR with one meaning only, it means for me that filthy animal called "a pig", nothing in the Arabic that I know for 40 years suggest to me that it means anything else, this is a total joke really, but what I can finally say is this

please consider that verse 16116 may also be talking about you, because it also talks about the people who try to allow things that are forbidden, I'm sure the verse is talking about things that vague like smoking for example but in this case Lahm Al Khnazir was clearly ?Horrim? by Allah, Allah does not play games with us man

Peace brother

[Grourself]

Peace,

For Omar Ali

According to the Dictionary of the Holy Qur'an Page 166, the word Khinzir is a combination of two words, a compound word, Khinz meaning ?bad? and ara meaning ?I see?- ; proud and evil; piggy (it means dirty, greedy and stubborn); Pig-headed; obstinate; stupidly perverse.

Referring to the Hans Wehr definition of khinzir including the word scrofulous, ?having a diseased appearance? is in agreement with the Quranic use of the compound term Khinzir (Dic. Of the Holy Qur?an), I see it bad/having a diseased appearance.

Scrofulous etymology scrofula+ous

WordNet Hyperdictionary

having a DISEASED APPEARANCE resembling scrofula;
morally contaminated;
afflicted with scrofula;

having a diseased run-down appearance

When referring to Lanes Lexicon under the entry Khazira, note that the meaning makes reference to seeing or eyes. It also makes the same reference to the diseased appearance caused by scrofula as Hans Wehr above.

The meaning pig, swine, hog, as a contemporary definition apparently reflects the evolution of the term.

Chazir (noun) swine, boar

This noun is well attested throughout northwest and south Semitic. It also appears in Akkadian as a loanword, although one derived noun means ?mouse? in addition to another noun which means ?pig?. The noun may denote the genus Sus scrofa, common throughout the ancient near east. The pig was regarded with little esteem throughout the ancient near east, along with the dog. Both were urban scavengers, omnivorous which would consume any refuge, including (especially true for pigs) excrement.

In Egypt both pigs and swine herds were considered to be repulsive. Attempts to explain the Israelite prohibition on pork consumption have all failed, as the ultimate rational for these laws escapes detection. In both Lev. 117 and Deut. 148, chazir represents unclean food, forbidden to the Israelites, based on the fact that, although it is a cloven footed animal, it does not chew the chud. Isaiah speaks of it?s flesh and blood as an offering in pagan rituals and false worship condemned by God (Isa. 654 ; 6617).

Chazir also occurs in Proverbs 1122 as a simile for a woman of disreputable character, ?like a gold ring in a pigs? snout is a woman without discretion.? There, in it?s ironic setting, it connotes the idea of beauty tainted by repulsiveness and presents a very close parallel to the Homeric use of kuon (HED # 293, ?Dog? which also occurs frequently in a similarly derogatory context (cf. Iliad 3180; 6344, where Helen of Troy applies the insult to herself.)

The Book Of Leviticus Page 2480 Article 2478

The Complete Biblical Library The Old Testament Hebrew English Dictionary
World Library Press Inc. Springfield Missouri Inc. USA

You may also reference Hastings Dictionary Of The Bible Edited by James Hastings 1963, Page 943

?Swine Domesticated swine were probably kept in the east in the earliest historic times when they appear to have been regarded as sacred. In a cave associated with the earliest place of sacrifice at ancient Gezer, in use certainly before 2000 BC, large quantites of pig bones where found. It was the sacrocent character of swine that lay at the root of the prohibition in Lev 11. & Deut. 14 and the eating of swine?s flesh and offering of swine?s blood are clearly regarded as a lapse into paganism. The heathen frequently tried to compel the Jews to eat the swines flesh and thus renouce their religion. The contempt for the swine is shown in Pr. 1122, Mt. 76, 2P222] In the talumdic writings the pig appears as the emblem of uncleanliness and those who keep swine are regarded with aversion. The same idea colors the parable of the prodical son Lk1515. where he is depicted as reaching the lowest depth of infamy being sent to fee the swine, and actually being reduced to covert their food and also in the narrative of the demoniacs where the Gentile inhabitants of Gerasa lose their great herds of swine?.?

An analysis of the ten occurrences of the ra-ja-sa indicates that it is a condition caused by actions or dirt. It is a condition that can be cleaned, removed or a condition that can be increased, hence changed. In 6145 the fisqan, that follows aw/or has also been caused and is conditional. Each item on the sanctioned list is conditional and can be changed to become lawful including the ?rijsin?.

For example in 6145, an animal that is alive is lawful. Blood that is not flowing is lawful. Flesh that is not khinzir is lawful. Accordingly, the action fa-sa-qa can also be changed making the food lawful. I don?t find any inherent permanence related to ra-ja-sa such as a species created ?rijsin? as a concept anywhere in the reading.

What has been sanctioned permanently for mankind are universal conditions that cross all lines of species. All the good is lawful and there is no blame on ?allathina aamanu for what he eats .

593 There is no blame upon those who believe and do good works for what they EAT when they are aware/cautious and believe and do good work, then they are aware/cautious and believe, then they are aware/cautious and do good; God loves the good doers.

The verb akala is a word that can include eating but does not mean ?to eat? food exclusively and therefore should be rendered as such and not shaded by the translator?s understanding. See 2188 for an example.

[Ali_Omar]

Dear Grourself,

How can I thank you enough?
This is the kind of clarification I am asking for. bravo

If nobody is contending your findings with, at least, the same value of proofs, then it is beyond doubt that the word can mean not only the animal pig, but also other things.

Then the question remains Anyone who understands ?khinzeer? as meaning pig, in verse 6.145, should try to find an explanation as to why pork is bad for us, because that is exactly what the verse says ?........lahma khinzeerin fa-innahu rijsun........?.
If this can not be found, then, to continue stating that it refers to the animal pig, is, should we say, ?pig headed?? lol
It is at best guesswork, or conjecture, something we should avoid. ?

I came into this discussion with doubts in my mind, and hoped to find certitude one way or another. I didn?t, and I don?t, care which way it goes, pig or no pig, as it is not part of my diet anyway, and neither is blood.
Right now I am leaning very heavily to the opinion that blood and pork is forbidden out of ignorance, not out of knowledge.
This will remain my opinion until such time someone brings evidence to the contrary.

I believe most people would shun raw, blood dripping, or bad smelling/seeming meat on most occasions, although throughout history there have been people consuming raw and/or not properly handled meat as well, hence Gods warning. )
And I will go on enjoying my, mainly, vegetarian diet.
On the other hand, pigs, be afraid be veeeery afraid! mrgreen

Best regards, and again, thanks

Ali Omar

[unknownuser]

The Jews and Christians are also forbidden from eating pork. Here is a quote from the Old Testament to that effect

?And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.?

Many Christians believe that this verse was directed only at the Jews. But Jesus himself says during the Sermon on the Mount

?Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.?

Some Christians say that, after a vision by St. Peter, God cleansed all animals and made them fit and lawful for human consumption. If ALL animals are cleansed by Peter?s vision, this includes dogs, cats, vultures, and rats but you just don?t see people getting excited about a cat-meat sandwich like they do over barbecued pork or bacon.
Others say that it was Paul who rescinded the law forbidding pork to humans, in order to appease the Romans, who enjoyed the taste of pig-meat. Many excuses have been given, but none are very sound.

Many Far Eastern traditions also discourage the eating of pork. The 3,000 year old Confucian Book of Rites says, ?A gentleman does not eat the flesh of pigs and dogs.? Although many Chinese are avid eaters of pork today, physicians of ancient China recognized pork-eating as the root of many human ailments. Buddhists, Jains and Hindus usually avoid eating any kind of meat.

Bad effects of pork consumption

Pig?s bodies contain many toxins, worms and latent diseases. Although some of these infestations are harbored in other animals, modern veterinarians say that pigs are far more predisposed to these illnesses than other animals. This could be because pigs like to scavenge and will eat any kind of food, including dead insects, worms, rotting carcasses, excreta (including their own), garbage, and other pigs.

Influenza (flu) is one of the most famous illnesses which pigs share with humans. This illness is harbored in the lungs of pigs during the summer months and tends to affect pigs and humans in the cooler months. Sausage contains bits of pigs? lungs, so those who eat pork sausage tend to suffer more during epidemics of influenza.
Pig meat also contains excessive quantities of histamine and imidazole compounds, which can lead to itching and inflammation; growth hormone, which promotes inflammation and growth; sulphur-containing mesenchymal mucus, which leads to swelling and deposits of mucus in tendons and cartilage, resulting in arthritis, rheumatism, etc. Sulphur helps cause firm human tendons and ligaments to be replaced by the pig?s soft mesenchymal tissues, and degeneration of human cartilage.

Eating pork can also lead to gallstones and obesity, probably due to its high cholesterol and saturated fat content. The pig is the main carrier of the taenia solium worm, which is found it its flesh. These tapeworms are found in human intestines with greater frequency in nations where pigs are eaten. This type of tapeworm can pass through the intestines and affect many other organs, and is incurable once it reaches beyond a certain stage.

One in six people in the US and Canada has trichinosis from eating trichina worms which are found in pork. Many people have no symptoms to warn them of this, and when they do, they resemble symptoms of many other illnesses. These worms are not noticed during meat inspections, nor are they killed by salting or smoking. Few people cook the meat long enough to kill the trichinae. The rat (another scavenger) also harbors this disease.

There are dozens of other worms, germs, diseases and bacteria which are commonly found in pigs, many of which are specific to the pig, or found in greater frequency in pigs.

Eating pork is harmful to health in a great many regards. This harm still persists today, despite all the precautions that are taken. First and foremost, no matter how clean the farms and environments on which it is raised may be, the pig is not by nature a clean-living animal. It often plays in, and even eats, its own excrement. Due to this and its biological structure, the pig produces much higher levels of antibodies in its body than other animals. In addition, far higher levels of growth hormone are produced in the pig compared to those in other animals and human beings. Naturally, these high levels of antibodies and growth hormone pass across to and collect in the pig's muscle tissue. Pork meat also contains high levels of cholesterol and lipids. It has been scientifically proven that these significant amounts of antibodies, hormones, cholesterol and lipids in pork represent a serious threat to human health.

Pigs are biologically similar to humans, and their meat is said to taste similar to human flesh. Pigs have been used for dissection in biology labs due to the similarity between their organs and human organs. People with insulin-dependent diabetes usually inject themselves with pig insulin. If you pour Coke (yes, the soda) on a slab of pork, and wait a little while, you will see worms crawl out of it.

All these reasons are just a part of the wisdom in our Lord's prohibition on the consumption of pork. Moreover, this commandment of our Lord's provides complete protection from the harmful effects of pork under any conditions.

It used to be that European people believed pork would taste better if the pigs were kept in a state of filth, but this is not the natural inclination of the pig. When left to their own devices, it is said that pigs do not like to soil their sleeping quarters. As for their tendency to wallow in mud, that is done mainly to keep cool.

[Ali_Omar]

Dear Ahmed,

Thank you for interesting info.
I would be very interested in the origin of the reported bad effects of pork consumption.

Could you please give me some details?

Regds

Ali Omar

[unknownuser]

Dear Ahmed,

Thank you for interesting info.
I would be very interested in the origin of the reported bad effects of pork consumption.

Could you please give me some details?

Regds

Ali Omar

Cheers Ali

mate, all this stuff are saved on documents on my laptop, I'm actually an active member on many boards and what I have is the history of what I discussed or researched in the past 18 months, the above came from many locations I can only remember one to be honest, part of the info above is on Harun Yehya web site, but what you can do is this bro, there is many medical terms and diseases mentioned why not searching the net and see if it relates to the meat of the pork or even search for info about workers who work in pig farms and how they get infected with horrible diseases

but the bottom line brother ali is this "for me", even if pork was the best meat ever, it was forbidden by Allah explicitly and more than once in His Quran, to be honest when I was 15 to 16 years old I used to go and buy mortadella in Egypt and bloody loved it but later realized that it has to stop, not because I discovered it is harmful, quite the contrary I only discovered this in the last 5 years or so, rather I took it as an order from Allah, I classify this issue as another small test within the numerous tests all of us go through equally, Allah wants to see who will believe and listen then obey, now I don't obey humans really, but because it was so literally straightforward in the Quran, I have to submit

a clear example is alcohol, now, alcohol is fun, it makes us forget the pain, right?, well Allah has told us that alcohol is a bit of good for us but its harm is far more dangerous and we should not come near it, so I stopped drinking about 16 years ago, the important note is this, I could not even read in the Quran that the meat of pig is a bit of good for us like alcohol, so both has to be eliminated and pork before alcohol even

Cheers

[marie]

Salam Ali Omar,

And this is the next obstacle. It seems like nobody consider what is stated in this verse, just bluntly accept blood is rijsun. The verse doesnt say that at all, it says flowing, or running blood. It does not say that blood, as such, is forbidden!

16115. He only made forbidden for you what is already dead, and blood, and the meat of pig, and what was sacrificed to any other than God. But whoever is forced to, without disobedience or transgression, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.

16116. 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.

The quran specifically mention blood that is pouring out, or running, i.e. not treated in any way, but raw, straight from the source.

Black pudding is fabricated with the running blood.
My question is if this running blood is cooked (black pudding), does that make it lawfull for us?
Idem for the dead meat?

It is double standard to say that blood in large amounts is rijsun but in small amounts it is not, and God does not keep double standards.

I said blood (16115, 2173) but I meant running blood (6145), this is why I gave you the example of black pudding.

I have put out one single question that everyone seems to be overlooking, so I post it again for the third time

Can the Arabic word, or root of khinzeer, mean something besides pig, or can it not?

According my understanding, there is any doubt that alkhinzeer is a noon like apes in the light of the Reading.

Independently of scientific arguments about the blood and the meat of pig, the Reading provides the criterion to follow about the animals of the livestock. Based on this, the pig don't fulfill this criterion. The examples given in the Reading is not a free information (6142-6144, 51).
Does pig is like the animals quoted in 6142-144?
The response is NO.

You accept scientific argument about the blood and you reject the same argument about the meat of pig, is this your logic?

Actually, if blood is treated properly, there is nothing wrong with it

If you mean running blood, please bring your proof from the Reading which support the statement above.

You should not eat A or B or C or D.............
You should avoid eating A and B and C and D.......

Different connecting words, same meaning. ?

I think you don't understand my explanation about why aw/or is used instead of wa/and in 6145. A right reading is necessary for a right understanding. "or" and "and" in 6145, 16115, 2173 is linked to the structure of the sentence but the meaning remains the same one. These 3 verses speaks about the same law; the prohibition of the dead, blood, meat of pig..etc. The common points between these prohibited food remains the same both in 6145 than in 16115, 2173 whatever the letter used "or" or "and".

Dear Grourself,

How can I thank you enough?
This is the kind of clarification I am asking for.

If nobody is contending your findings with, at least, the same value of proofs, then it is beyond doubt that the word can mean not only the animal pig, but also other things.

If your question is answered based on what is said in the dictionnaries instead of the Reading, then I tell you good luck for your further study. Personnally I don't trust what is said in the dictionnaries. As I said it to Danish, I seek any guidance in them. The Reading is my only criterion and I find the answers to my questions only in the light of the Reading because it explains itself based.

Salam

[Ali_Omar]

Dear Ahmed,

Thank you for further info.
I will look into it and see what I find.

There are many mentions of a source called ?Health Corporation of Singapore? on the Internet concerning this issue, containing a very similar text as what you referred.
However, the only organization of that name in Singapore is a staff union for employees at health institutions, hospitals and so on, and has nothing whatsoever to do with health questions one way or another.
Therefore this may be someone faking a research authority, and has no bases in reality whatsoever. I just hope your information does not stem from that fake source, it has fooled many.

As to what God says in the quran, I can not find any mention of ?meat of pig? mentioned anywhere as forbidden, as explained in an earlier post.
Now I will search a bit further into the matter and see what comes up. As I said I am very laid-back with regards to pork being allowed or not as it is not part of my diet.

Regards

Ali Omar

[marie]

Salam Grourself,

According to the Dictionary of the Holy Qur'an Page 166, the word Khinzir is a combination of two words, a compound word, Khinz meaning bad and ara meaning I see-

the last syllabe of khinzeer "ir" interpreted as ara = appearance = conjecture.

Khinz meaning bad is a forced meaning, the basic meaning is stink, reek, smell foul.
"see" and "smell foul" together doesn't make any sence, then Khinzeer as a combination of two words doesn't hold water.

Will you proceed in the same way for the following words which are ended with the same syllabe than khinzeer?

naseer/Helper (445)
qadeer/able/capable (4133)
basheer/bearer of good news (519)
hameer/donkey (168 )

And so on..

Can you bring other examples from the Reading where this kind of combination is used ?

Or khinzeer is an unique exception in the Reading.

having a DISEASED APPEARANCE resembling scrofula;
morally contaminated;
afflicted with scrofula;

having a diseased run-down appearance

having a diseased run-down appearance is a forced meaning.

According my arabic-arabic dictionnary, lisan alAAarab, alkhinzeer is also a known/specific desease which is a solid/hardened, abscess, canker, wound, hardened, ulcer of the nape of the neck

Neither khinzeer as a combination of 2 words or a solid/hardened, abscess, canker, wound, hardened, ulcer of the nape of the neck makes sense in the light of the Reading.

The Reading is the best dictionary and the words used to mean ill/sick/desease in a general way are marad, marda, mareed, saqeemun

443. O you who believe, do not come near the contact-method while you are drunk, until you know what you are saying. Nor dirty, except if travelling, until you wash. And if you are ill or traveling, or one of you has excreted feces, or you had sexual contact with the women, and could not find water then you shall make ablution with clean soil by wiping your faces and hands. God is Pardoning, Forgiving.

Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoola taqraboo alssalata waantum sukarahatta taAAlamoo ma taqooloona walajunuban illa AAabiree sabeelin hattataghtasiloo wa-in kuntum marda aw AAala safarin awjaa ahadun minkum mina algha-iti aw lamastumualnnisaa falam tajidoo maan fatayammamoo saAAeedantayyiban faimsahoo biwujoohikum waaydeekuminna Allaha kana AAafuwwan ghafooran

4102, 56, 991, 3332, 4817, 7320,

9125. 125. As for those who have a disease in their hearts, it only increased foulness to their foulness, and they died as rejecters.

Waamma allatheena feequloobihim maradun fazadat-hum rijsan ilarijsihim wamatoo wahum kafiroona

2461. There is no blame upon the blind, nor is there any blame upon the crippled, nor is there any blame upon the ill, nor is there any blame upon yourselves, if you eat at your homes, or the homes of your fathers, or the homes of your mothers, or the homes of your brothers, or the homes of your sisters, or the homes of your uncles, or the homes of your aunts, or the homes of your mothers brothers, or the homes of your mothers sisters, or that which you possess their keys, or that of your friends. You commit nothing wrong by eating together or as individuals. When you enter any home, you shall greet each other a greeting from God that is blessed and good. God thus explains the revelations for you that you may understand.

Laysa AAala al-aAAma harajunwala AAala al-aAAraji harajun walaAAala almareedi harajun wala AAalaanfusikum an ta/kuloo min buyootikum aw buyooti aba-ikumaw buyooti ommahatikum aw buyooti ikhwanikum awbuyooti akhawatikum aw buyooti aAAmamikum awbuyooti AAammatikum aw buyooti akhwalikum awbuyooti khalatikum aw ma malaktum mafatihahuaw sadeeqikum laysa AAalaykum junahun an ta/kuloojameeAAan aw ashtatan fa-itha dakhaltum buyootanfasallimoo AAala anfusikum tahiyyatan min AAindiAllahi mubarakatan tayyibatan kathalikayubayyinu Allahu lakumu al-ayati laAAallakumtaAAqiloona

2680. And if I am sick, He is the One who cures me.
      Wa-itha maridtu fahuwayashfeeni

2681. And he said I am ill!
      Faqala innee saqeemun

[unknownuser]

Peace brother Ali

regarding verse 6145, I see that you consider the word (Masfoha) as a very important key word that make the meaning some sort of running blood or poured blood

really mate and very simply, "I'm not the type of person who makes things hard or complicated", Allah has told us in at least two other locations that Blood is forbidden, the word "masfoha" was not mentioned at all in these other locations, however looking at 6145 again, I see it means the exact meaning as blood, with an additional piece of info, which is the way the blood was obtained, the common arabic meaning for the word safaha is actually (to kill) or (to try to kill) or to inflict harm on others like (to rape) , (not sure about other meanings if any, I'm just looking at the common meaning that I know in arabic), in fact we call a serial killer or a serial rapist a "Saf'fah", this is a common arabic word indeed, so when I read the the word "Masfoha" which gramatically is called "Maf'oola" i.e. an action was performed on it, for example "Ma'koola" means been eaten, and the root is "akala" (eat), so I see "Masofha" clearly means that the blood was obtained by an action (an action was perfomed on it) "Maf'oola", and the action is to hurt or to kill any creature to obtain its blood to drink it

regardless the blood becomes stationery in a cup or been sucked directly from the injury inflicted on that creature is the exact same for me which is drinking the forbidden blood

Allah knows best

Peace brother