Bacon on my cheeseburger
-
Odd, of all the topics you could have chosen to fill the blank of this sentence...
"I've seen members here use quran to convince others (and themselves) that ............. is allowed."
You chose... Homosexuality.
Some of the best people I have come across in this world are gay.
Okay... ? -
Peace!
If the message is summed up in this one ayat "There is no compulsion in the religion; the proper way has been made clear from the wrong way. Whoever rejects evil, and believes in God; then he has grasped the most solid branch that will never break. God is Hearer, Knower. (2256)" then why did Allah need to reveal everything else?
Such a big book to with so many lines to say 'just allegorical'?
How do I make sure whether the Ayat you referred to, viz., "He is the One who sent down to you the Scripture, from which there are governing verses; they are the essence of the Scripture; and others that are allegorical. As for those who have disease in their hearts, they will follow what is allegorical from it seeking to confuse, and seeking to derive an interpretation. But none know its interpretation except God; and those who are well founded in knowledge, they Say ?We believe in it, all is from our Lord.? And none will remember except the people of understanding. (37)"
Is it to be taken literally? If so, on what basis?
If Allah would mean just this Ayat and all the characteristics you mentioned about the Straight Path, then why reveal so many other Ayat? To guide only people 1400 years ago? Then 1400 years from now the level and standards of Morality would change, for example, today, most people think there is nothing wrong in seeing or being a girl with a mini skirt on - no modesty!
Please take a look at the ayat you quoted - especially the part "Whoever rejects evil" (2256), how do we define evil? Wearing a miniskirt is not 'evil' for a model, but it is 'evil' for me and my wife. If Allah leaves 'evil' to our random guesses, likes, concensus etc., then the Quran cannot be the 'Furqan' (the criterion) and if it is so, then in what sense? Also, it would make the Quran very unclear, but the Quran says that it is clear.
There are too many things in discussion here. Instead of putting all the points, I suggest that you study the Quran in Arabic, if not, then, though its kind of irritating to read it, please study the translation by Dr. Taqiud-din-Hilali and Dr. Muhsin Khan. They are staunch Sunni translators, but one good thing is that they leave the key words untranslated in their translation. For example, 22, "This is the Book (the Qur'?n), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaq?n."
He even retains words such as 'Fasiqun' and 'T?gh?t', which is the word that is translated as 'evil' in 2256. A study of this translation, does clarify a lot of things.
-
Peace Tay, Phil, all,
Carrion is rotten/bad by definition, but not all rotten/bad meat is necessarily carrion. So, there is a distinction. Nevertheless, neither is a good choice in times of necessity. I'm no rotten meat expert, but is it possible (in times of necessity) to separate rotten meat from good meat?
To extend the argument a bit further, rotten/bad includes carrion, thus carrion is a subset of rotten/bad, so if khinzeer means rotten/bad then why mention carrion separately as that would be redundant ?
As for the adverse effects of pork meat on health, they are quite well researched and make pork meat a uniquely bad meat for health. No other meat of any other animal has been scientifically shown to have AS MANY bad effects on health as pork meat. (I am talking about the meat itself, not the infections in the meat). For details please see the article posted at the following link by brother Arnold
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=5666.0
Peace
-
Peace Tay, Phil, all,
To extend the argument a bit further, rotten/bad includes carrion, thus carrion is a subset of rotten/bad, so if khinzeer means rotten/bad then why mention carrion separately as that would be redundant ?
Peace Tanveer,
By definition, carrion is the carcass of a dead animal. Either the cause of the death to the animal is unknown (eg. stumbling upon on dead animal in the jungle/field) or the proper technique was not employed on the animal to cause the death, Q53 both categories are prohibited as a source to our food. What important to note here, is the fact that the meat doesn't need to look bad.
Meanwhile, if we take Lahma Khanzeerin as a food that's perceived as bad, this will include the expired chicken salad or sandwich sold in the supermarket that has grown fungus in it or suspected cow with "mad cow" disease or even chicken with avian flu disease.
They way i see it, the "an yakoona maytatan" and "lahma khinzeerin" are not redundant. They refer to different category of food though you may find most carrion looks really bad.
As for the adverse effects of pork meat on health, they are quite well researched and make pork meat a uniquely bad meat for health. No other meat of any other animal has been scientifically shown to have AS MANY bad effects on health as pork meat. (I am talking about the meat itself, not the infections in the meat). For details please see the article posted at the following link by brother Arnold
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=5666.0
Peace
Equally, we can see many articles supported with scientific research proposing swine meat as a source for nutritional supplement to our body. But, I don't think we are here to promote or oppose eating swine based on this research alone.
I can't help but to ponder on this meaty issue whether what we think and believe on other issues is really the true meaning of what is written in the Qur'an.
Peace
-
So i guess sh*t is ok to eat because there's nothing in the quran that mentions it ...
come on folks i really doubt God needed to tell us that if meat smells like a*s and has bugs all over it, leave it alone...
we need to use our common sense
-
Peace Phil, all,
By definition, carrion is the carcass of a dead animal. Either the cause of the death to the animal is unknown (eg. stumbling upon on dead animal in the jungle/field) or the proper technique was not employed on the animal to cause the death, Q53 both categories are prohibited as a source to our food. What important to note here, is the fact that the meat doesn't need to look bad.
Any way you see it, its YOUR PERCEPTION that determines what a carrion is, so a carrion is also a PERCEIVED bad meat. PERCEPTION does not have to be VISUAL or OLFACTORY alone. The meat doesn't need to look bad and still can be bad; and how do we know that a meat is bad even when it doesn't LOOK bad is through our other senses and using our mind, in which case it is STILL A PERCEPTION.
The God never says anything without any reason; it is us who may not be able to understand the reasoning behind it. Why is a dead animal prohibited when the proper technique is not employed to kill it ? In my opinion, that is because such a dead animal has a higher probability of having some kind of infection or some other toxin, thus having higher probability of being BAD MEAT.
Meanwhile, if we take Lahma Khanzeerin as a food that's perceived as bad, this will include the expired chicken salad or sandwich sold in the supermarket that has grown fungus in it or suspected cow with "mad cow" disease or even chicken with avian flu disease.
How will you "suspect" beef having "mad cow" disease or chicken meat with avian flu disease ? None of your senses can tell you that. So how will it be PERCEIVED to be bad ?
They way i see it, the "an yakoona maytatan" and "lahma khinzeerin" are not redundant. They refer to different category of food though you may find most carrion looks really bad.
Thus carrion will be a subset of "khinzeerin" and thus be redundant. A meat may be bad even when it is not perceived to be bad.
Equally, we can see many articles supported with scientific research proposing swine meat as a source for nutritional supplement to our body.
The authors of those articles intentionally or unintentionally ignore the harmful effects of pig meat on the human body or are unaware of them. Ignorance is not proof that pig meat is beneficial.
Peace
-
Peace BuDaddy,
I was quite impressed by your logic and reasoning until I came to the following points in your article which show that you have misunderstood and thus completely misquoted some things from al-qur'aan thus destroying your credibility. You yourself are doing what you accused the sunni scholars of doing, i.e. misquoting al-qur'aan.
(A) The Qur?an tells believers to face the Restricted Temple (Masjid Al-Haram) when they observe their bond (salat) with God.
Al-qur'aan NEVER tells believers to face "masjid al-haram" ONLY when they observe their salat with The God. The believers are asked to orient themselves to "masjid al-haram" WHEREVER they are, which means AT ALL TIMES.
2144 We see the shifting of your face towards the sky; We will thus set for you a target/aim that will be pleasing to you "You shall set yourself towards "al-masjid al-haram"; and wherever you may be, you shall all set yourselves towards it." Those who have been given the Scripture know it is the truth from their Lord. And God is not unaware of what you do.
Thus the target/aim is to orient ourselves to "masjid al-haram" wherever we are and not only while upholding salat.
They are also told to do their obligatory (at least once in their lifetime) Pilgrimage to the Restricted Temple.
Al-qur'aan NEVER tells us to do "hajj" to "masjid al-haram" but at "bayt al-haram" or the restricted/inviolable house/sanctuary. Looks like you are not familiar with the difference. Furthermore "hajj" is not a pilgrimage but a "debate" or an "annual market/fair where also a debate/discussion is held". Please note that the people are invited "bi"/WITH "al-hajj" and not "ila"/TO "al-hajj"
2227 And call out to the people with al-hajj, they will come to you walking and on every transport, they will come from every deep enclosure.
Wherever it says TO al-hajj in translations is a mistranslation as the prefix "ila" is not there. It says "hajj al-bayt" and not "hajj ila al-bayt", for example in 2158 and 397.
The problem is, the Qur?an never tells where the Restricted Temple is
The problem is with your understanding, not with al-qur'aan. First of all "masjid al-haram" does not mean a "physical temple"; for that al-qur'aan uses the word "bayt". Al-qur'aan clearly tells us what "masjid al-haram" is, and once you know WHAT it is, you will know WHERE it is
2144 We see the shifting of your face towards the sky; We will thus set for you a target/aim that will be pleasing to you "You shall set yourself towards the Restricted Temple; and wherever you may be, you shall all set yourselves towards it." Those who have been given the Scripture know it is the truth from their Lord. And God is not unaware of what you do.
Here al-qur'aan is clearly telling the people of the scripture WHAT "masjid al-haram" is i.e. IT IS THE TRUTH FROM THEIR LORD. We are required to orient ourselves to "the truth from our lord" wherever we are. Thus the target/aim is a mental one and not a physical one. Masjid al-haram translated literally means "institution of hearing and obeying the forbidden" and the vehicle for such an institution could be either the "bayt al-haram"/restricted/inviolable sanctuary or ones mind.
Please see the following links for a detailed explanation of "masjid al-haram", "qibla", "hajj" and "bayt al-haram" according to al-qur'aan
http//free-minds.org/articles/gods_system/name.htm
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=5437.0
You can also use the search function to look at other past discussions on these topics on this forum.
(B) Believers are commanded in the Qur?an to observe the month of Ramadan (when the Qur?an was descended to the Prophet Mohammed), as well as fast within the month. The problem is in accreting when the month is.
The problem is you are looking for something that DOES NOT EXIST.
Nowhere are they commanded to observe a "month" of Ramadan. Two key words in al-qur'aan have been mistranslated. According to the qur'aanic context and referencing the classical arabic dictionaries, "shahr" in al-qur'aan can only mean "full moon" and not a month, and "ramadan" means "scorching heat" and not a proper name of a month. "Shahr ramadan", according to al-qur'aan, would thus mean "full moon of the scorching heat".
Firstly, there is ZERO evidence of the existence of a month by the name of Ramadan in the pre-qur'aanic or peri-qur'aanic times. This was a later innovation many years after completion of revelation of al-qur'aan when some so called muslims invented the lunar calendar.
Secondly, al-qur'aan was descended in a "night" and not a "month" according to al-qur'aan
971 We have sent it down in the Night of Decree.
If you believe that "shahr" in 2185 means "month" then it would directly contradict with 971. If, however, "shahr" is rightly translated as "full moon" in 2185 then there is no contradiction, as the full moon of scorching heat occurs in a night.
Thirdly, how can one WITNESS a month per 2185, if "shahr" means a month there
2185 Shahr ramadan, in which the Quran was revealed; as a guide to the people and a clarification of the guidance and the criterion. Therefore, whoever of you witnesses the shahr, then let him fast therein.
One can only witness things perceived by our senses. One cannot WITNESS a month, as it is not a cosmic phenomenon, but is an arbitrary man made time period which occurs at an arbitrary time determined by when the first month was arbitrarily chosen to start. If it is translated as "month of Ramadan" then it becomes meaningless as all months are man made and arbitrary and cannot be witnessed and Ramadan as a name of a month is a meaningless label. One can, however, witness cosmic phenomenon such as a full moon.
For detailed discussion of this topic please see the following links in addition to using the search function in this forum
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=6238.0
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=2757.0
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=4361.0
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=6894.msg106356#msg106356
(C) There are certain dictates within the Qur?an to observe certain events at very specific times during the day. A believer is commanded to observe his bond with God at both dusk and dawn on a daily basis. But to observe these specifically timed Qur?anic dictates on a global scale is impossible. And Islam is supposed to be a global religion meant for all of mankind.
The general salat/connection with The God or closely following the Divine Commandments can be upheld at any time. The timed/regular salat enjoined upon the muslimeen/submitters is to be upheld during certain cosmic time periods. In my understanding, wherever those cosmic time periods can be witnessed regularly, one should follow them, but wherever one cannot observe those cosmic time periods regularly, one can uphold the salat when one rises and before going to bed according to one's internal clock. The aim is to uphold salat twice in 24 hours at regular intervals. In places where dawn and dusk are not regularly witnessed, people can come to a mutual understanding through mutual consultation
4238 And those who have responded to their Lord, and they honour the Salat, and their affairs are conducted by mutual consultation among themselves, and from Our provisions to them they give.
Peace
-
Thus carrion will be a subset of "khinzeerin" and thus be redundant. A meat may be bad even when it is not perceived to be bad.
Peace Tanveer,
The translation for "lahma khinzeerin" that i'm proposing is not "bad meat" but rather "bad food". Perhaps you missed some part in my ealier post where u can see "Lahma" historically refers to different meaning.
When you read Lahma as food instead of meat, then you will see "an yakoona maytatan" and "lahma khinzeerin" are not redundant.
Peace
-
Peace Phil,
Perhaps you missed some part in my ealier post
No I did not miss any of your posts but PERHAPS YOU MISSED WHAT YOU WROTE IN YOUR OWN POSTS !! as I will shortly demonstrate.
But first allow me to point to another fallacy in your argument. You are building an argument based not on facts but conjecture
The root l-h-m means "meat" in Arabic but "bread" in Hebrew and "cow" in Ethiosemitic languages; the original meaning was most probably "food".
The above quoted from your post at http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=7059.msg107309#msg107309
Most probably = conjecture. Please show factual evidence as opposed to conjectures.
Now I will demonstrate what you missed recollecting from your own earlier posts !
You yourself translate lahma khinzeerin = "perceived as rotten/bad MEAT" instead of food
I believe the translation is not "rotten meat" but rather "perceived as rotten/bad meat".
The above from your post at http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=7059.msg107404#msg107404
In the same post you yourself admit that BOTH "lahma khinzeerin" and "maytatan" are categories of food
I believe the translation is not "rotten meat" but rather "perceived as rotten/bad meat". There's no specific details on how should/can we perceive/define rotten/bad meat and therefore the criteria is left to us to decide using our senses ability. Nevertheless, common sense will also tell us to avoid carrion and life animal beside than rotten meat. Despite that, God tells us that it is not a sin if we were forced to consume these categories of food out of necessity.
The bolded and underlined parts of your quote show that according to you yourself
rotten/bad meat + carrion = categories of FOOD
And now you are suggesting that carrion is not category of food ?
The translation for "lahma khinzeerin" that i'm proposing is not "bad meat" but rather "bad food". Perhaps you missed some part in my ealier post where u can see "Lahma" historically refers to different meaning.
When you read Lahma as food instead of meat, then you will see "an yakoona maytatan" and "lahma khinzeerin" are not redundant.
What kind of logic is that ?
Since when is carrion not subset of or category of food ? Actually the word is "maytatan" which means "that which is dead", which includes not just meat but everything of a carrion and all that is category of food as per your own admission.
Thus even if you FALSELY translate "lahma khinzeerin" based on your CONJECTURE as "bad FOOD", carrion is still a subset of food and thus mentioning both terms together would be redundant.
Also consider the following sign
6145 Say "I do not find in what is inspired to me forbidden except that it be already dead, or blood, or the meat of pig, for it is foul; or what is corruptly dedicated to other than God."
If "lahma khinzeerin" = "rotten/bad meat/food" then saying that bad food is foul is also redundant. It is common sense that rotten/bad meat/food is foul, and adding "for it is foul" in 6145 would be redundant.
Not to forget the grammatical rules which do not allow "khinzeerin" to be an adjective of "lahma" the way the phrase is constructed in the arabic language, and in that phrase, the way it is written in al-qur'aan, "khinzeerin" can only be a noun. This is not just according to arabic grammar but also is confirmed by the internal structure of similar phrases used in al-qur'aan. This has been discussed ad nauseum in previous forum discussions on this topic and you can use the search function to locate them. Following are few links where this noun issue has been discussed in depth
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=4172.0
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=4484.msg64639#msg64639
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=4484.msg64987#msg64987
Peace
-
Peace Tanveer,
My apologies for missing your reply...
To extend the argument a bit further, rotten/bad includes carrion, thus carrion is a subset of rotten/bad, so if khinzeer means rotten/bad then why mention carrion separately as that would be redundant ?
Not necessarily. Not all dead animals are rotten/bad. An animal could have died moments before one arrives on the scene.
As for the adverse effects of pork meat on health, they are quite well researched and make pork meat a uniquely bad meat for health. No other meat of any other animal has been scientifically shown to have AS MANY bad effects on health as pork meat. (I am talking about the meat itself, not the infections in the meat). For details please see the article posted at the following link by brother Arnold
Thanks for the link. I checked it out when Arnold first posted it and must admit that the "1983" dating of it had me a bit skeptical off the bat. I'll give it another whirl and see what comes up. Is there anything more recent to qualify adverse effects of pork as "well-researched" and "uniquely bad"?
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating pork. But I'm not closing the door on the idea that it may not be forbidden. Like I said originally, neither argument has conclusively edged out the other.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Tay,
In your earlier post you stated
Carrion is rotten/bad by definition, but not all rotten/bad meat is necessarily carrion.
Now in your last post you stated
Not all dead animals are rotten/bad.
Are you contradicting yourself here ?
An animal could have died moments before one arrives on the scene.
How did that animal die ?
Is there anything more recent to qualify adverse effects of pork as "well-researched" and "uniquely bad"?
Arnold's post was from THE ADVERSE INFLUENCE OF PORK CONSUMPTION ON HEALTH by Professor Hans-Heinrich Reckeweg, M.D. Biological Therapy Vol.1 No. 2 1983
The most recent I could find are fllowing
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16364024&query_hl=25&itool=pubmed_docsum
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16161675&query_hl=25&itool=pubmed_docsum
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12932671&query_hl=25&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12781374&query_hl=25&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12781378&query_hl=25&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=9835299&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=9851601&query_hl=25&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=3638477
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=2996744
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1770927&query_hl=25&itool=pubmed_DocSum
Another article by Prof. Dr. M. Abdussalaam in Switzerland
http//www.islamset.com/hip/pork/Abdussalam.html
Peace
-
Peace Tanveer,
You're right about carrion. My apologies for the contradiction. So, does the qur'an say "carrion" or does it say "dead"? I know all translators chose carrion, which, by definition is rotten/bad. But is that the proper translation? If not, and it is just "dead", then my point still stands.
And thanks for the links.
Peace,
Tay -
You're right about carrion. My apologies for the contradiction. So, does the qur'an say "carrion" or does it say "dead"? I know all translators chose carrion, which, by definition is rotten/bad. But is that the proper translation? If not, and it is just "dead", then my point still stands.
I think the word is 'maytatan' from the root m-w-t, 'death'. Another usage in a different context is in 6139, where 'maytatan' is used to refer to calves dead in their mother's wombs.
Btw, the Indonesian word 'mayat' ('dead human body' is derived from that Arabic word.
-
Peace Tay,
Lane's Lexicon gives the following meanings of "maytatan"
Carrion; that which has not been slaughtered in the manner prescribed by the law; that of which the life has departed without slaughter; what has died a natural death; what has been killed in a state or manner different from that prescribed by the law.
It seems that it gives both meanings "carrion", and that which is already dead and not slaughtered.
But is that the proper translation? If not, and it is just "dead", then my point still stands.
Even if "maytatan" means that which is already dead (not killed for food) and not carrion in the qur'aanic context, I need your answer to the following question that I proposed in my last post but perhaps you missed
An animal could have died moments before one arrives on the scene.
Regarding this particular situation/possibility that you mentioned, how did this animal die ? Please list the various possibilities. Depending on your answer I will advance my argument.
And thanks for the links.
You are most welcome bro.
Peace
-
Peace Tanveer, Andya,
OK, so it's clear that maytatan does not necessarily mean rotten or bad. From a logical standpoint then, it is not redundant to say "dead animals and rotten/bad food/meat".
Regarding this particular situation/possibility that you mentioned, how did this animal die ? Please list the various possibilities. Depending on your answer I will advance my argument.
OK, here's 2 of each...
- Heart failure
- A stray bullet to the skull
- A bite from a Komodo dragon
- Drowning in a swamp
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Tay, all,
- Heart failure
- A stray bullet to the skull
- A bite from a Komodo dragon
- Drowning in a swamp
As is evident from the above list that majority of the times an animal is found dead it has been overly stressed for a period of time before death. This results in a higher than normal release of cortisol, and catecholamines and also rapid metabolism of muscle glycogen resulting in the muscle glycogen stores depleted before death which causes very little lactic acid production after death (glycogen is metabolised to lactic acid). This results in a higher than normal PH of the dead meat resulting in meat that looks dark, firm and dry (DFD meat). DFD meat means that the carcass was from an animal that was stressed, injured or diseased before its death.
It is necessary for animals to be stress and injury free prior to slaughter, so as not to unnecessarily deplete muscle glycogen reserves. This is in order to allow for muscle glycogen to be replaced by the body as much as possible. It is important that the glycogen levels in the muscles of the dead carcass are as high as possible, to develop the maximum level of lactic acid in the meat. This acid gives meat an ideal pH level, measured after 24 hours after slaughter, of 6.2 or lower. The 24h (or ultimate) pH higher than 6.2 indicates that the animal was stressed, injured or diseased prior to its death. Slaughter, if done properly, does not cause as much stress as prolonged stress, injury or disease before death and does not raise the PH of the meat that much.
Slaughter, in fact is sudden high stress, which does not result in muscle glycogen stores being depleted before death and actually causes higher levels of lactic acid in the muscles after death due to breakdown of glycogen to lactic acid AFTER death. This results in meat that has slower bacterial growth and thus longer time to spoilage and longer shelf life.
Lactic acid in the muscle has the effect of retarding the growth of bacteria that have contaminated the carcass. These bacteria cause spoilage of the meat during storage, particularly in warmer environments, and the meat develops off-smells, colour changes, rancidity and slime. This is spoilage, and these processes decrease the shelf life of meat, thus causing wastage of valuable food. If the contaminating bacteria are those of the food poisoning type, the consumers of the meat become sick, resulting in costly treatment and loss of manpower hours to the national economies. DFD meat from animals, resulting from stress, injuries, or disease before death, has very low amounts of lactic acid and high PH which favors rapid bacterial growth and faster spoilage and much reduced shelf life.
The DFD meat also has higher cortisol and catecholamine levels than properly slaughtered meat and studies have shown that such meat has higher fat content and lower lean meat content which also makes it more unhealthy than regular meat from properly slaughtered animals.
The DFD meat is also less palatable and does not taste as good as regular meat and consumers tend not to buy it because of its appearance and the inferior taste.
This DFD meat is found in the majority of animals that are found dead and have not been slaughtered for food and is INTRINSICALLY BAD MEAT with low lactic acid levels and high PH resulting in faster microbial spoilage, and also with higher fat content and lower lean meat content. Thus the meat of an animal that is found dead is INTRINSICALLY BAD MEAT even if the animal died few moments before one arrived on the scene, and can be easily perceived as bad because of the dark, firm and dry (DFD) appearance. Such meat, therefore is a subset of PERCEIVED TO BE BAD MEAT/FOOD and therefore, usage of "perceived to be bad meat" and "dead meat" together would be redundant.
References
http//cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16448469
http//www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6909E/x6909e04.htm
http//www.fass.org/fass01/pdfs/Berg.pdf
http//ag.ansc.purdue.edu/meat_quality/meat_quality_problems.html
http//ag.ansc.purdue.edu/meat_quality/mqf_stress.html
http//www.naturalhub.com/buy_food_meat_tenderness.htm
http//cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16741936
http//www.meatscience.org/Pubs/factsheets/q-variationinporklean.pdf
Peace
-
Peace Tanveer,
Thank you kindly for the wealth of info. It is definitely enriching. Not to split hairs or anything, but we are dealing with all possibilities in order to gain a greater insight. That being said, I don't believe the information you provided can apply to examples 1 and 2, since both are sudden deaths equivalent to "proper slaughter".
Nevertheless, one can not really know how long an animal has been dead unless there is overwhelming evidence of it's safe (from a dining standpoint) demise. I would say that it's not a good idea - unless the situation deemed it absolutely necessary - just as God has advised.
My other question which got overlooked earlier in the thread would be regarding rotten/bad meat. When a banana, for instance, is starting to spoil, it's easy to break off the browning section and eat the good stuff. Can the same be said for meat? Can you cut away the rotting areas and have something salvagable?
Thanks again for your insights.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Phil,
No I did not miss any of your posts but PERHAPS YOU MISSED WHAT YOU WROTE IN YOUR OWN POSTS !! as I will shortly demonstrate.
But first allow me to point to another fallacy in your argument. You are building an argument based not on facts but conjecture
The above quoted from your post at http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=7059.msg107309#msg107309
Most probably = conjecture. Please show factual evidence as opposed to conjectures.
Peace Tanveer,
Sorry for the late reply.
I wonder whether you would be asking the same line of question if the author from Wiki decided to say, "The root l-h-m means "meat" in Arabic but "bread" in Hebrew and "cow" in Ethiosemitic languages; the original meaning was definitely 'food'."?
The finding from the Wiki is not the only basis on how I came to my current understanding on the issue.
As I have told earlier, I had the doubt on the meaning of "Lahma Khinzeerin" amongst others from the usage of "Lahma" itself. If Lahma means meat, and Khinzeerin means pig, then what about other part of the animal? Why God leaves other part of this animal hanging without explanation and yet claim the Qur'an is a detailed scripture? Or are you saying that pig's intenstine and lard are permissible? What are the rationales that meat is prohibited but not the rest?
Common sense that I have, tells me that there's something wrong somewhere with the common understanding of these words.
Khinzeerin cannot mean pig simply because I believe God won't turn human into pyhsical pig but rather the usage of the word khinzr simply is to denote the characteristic of being bad.
Talking about conjecture, please tell me based on your understanding of the so-called fact, how God surely had turned human into pig?
Now I will demonstrate what you missed recollecting from your own earlier posts !
You yourself translate lahma khinzeerin = "perceived as rotten/bad MEAT" instead of food
You have quoted my statement out of context. Let's see the whole picture of the argument.
Imagine, God would sanction eating rotten meat out of need? We don't have the stomachs, literally, to be able to digest rotten meat without getting severely, even deathly, ill. The other forbiddances I can see as tolerable out of need, including pork. But rotten meat is never a good idea.
I believe the translation is not "rotten meat" but rather "perceived as rotten/bad meat". There's no specific details on how should/can we perceive/define rotten/bad meat and therefore the criteria is left to us to decide using our senses ability. Nevertheless, common sense will also tell us to avoid carrion and life animal beside than rotten meat. Despite that, God tells us that it is not a sin if we were forced to consume these categories of food out of necessity.
My first reply to Tay was to address his translation of "rotten meat" since the key word which is "perceived" was missing. Thus as seen in my reply, Tay's translation should have been "perceived as rotten/bad meat".
When this is understood, then only I came with the actual question with my proposed translation of which can be seen in my subsequent question.
I fail to see the rational when applying your logic that says ok to eat carrion out of necessity, but not to "bad/rotten food". Any explanation, if you don't mind?
As you can see, my line of arguments are based on the understanding of "Lahma" is Food and not meat.
The above from your post at http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=7059.msg107404#msg107404
In the same post you yourself admit that BOTH "lahma khinzeerin" and "maytatan" are categories of food
The bolded and underlined parts of your quote show that according to you yourself
rotten/bad meat + carrion = categories of FOOD
And now you are suggesting that carrion is not category of food ?
What kind of logic is that ?
Carrion/dead animal and rotten/bad food are two separate group of foods. Nowhere that i can recall I ever suggested that these are not categories of food. Please read again my statements.
Since when is carrion not subset of or category of food ? Actually the word is "maytatan" which means "that which is dead", which includes not just meat but everything of a carrion and all that is category of food as per your own admission.
You obviously misquoted my statement.
Thus even if you FALSELY translate "lahma khinzeerin" based on your CONJECTURE as "bad FOOD", carrion is still a subset of food and thus mentioning both terms together would be redundant.
Bad food does not have to be meat. It can be of any kind of food. Hope this is clear enough for you.
Also consider the following sign
6145 Say "I do not find in what is inspired to me forbidden except that it be already dead, or blood, or the meat of pig, for it is foul; or what is corruptly dedicated to other than God."
If "lahma khinzeerin" = "rotten/bad meat/food" then saying that bad food is foul is also redundant. It is common sense that rotten/bad meat/food is foul, and adding "for it is foul" in 6145 would be redundant.
You are advocating against the fallacy. Now tell me why pig meat is foul?
Not to forget the grammatical rules which do not allow "khinzeerin" to be an adjective of "lahma" the way the phrase is constructed in the arabic language, and in that phrase, the way it is written in al-qur'aan, "khinzeerin" can only be a noun. This is not just according to arabic grammar but also is confirmed by the internal structure of similar phrases used in al-qur'aan. This has been discussed ad nauseum in previous forum discussions on this topic and you can use the search function to locate them. Following are few links where this noun issue has been discussed in depth
Arabic grammar? I rather look at the context of the message. Grammatically it is correct to say God changed human to pig. But I choose not to agree on that. It against my common sense. Not to mention that God will break His own Law of Creation.
Peace .
-
Peace
The first rule of food is to eat which is lawful and good.
Why should there be a word or a verse specifically instructing not to eat bad food ?
2 168
Yusuf Ali O ye people! eat of what is on earth lawful and good; and do not follow the footsteps of the evil one for he is to you an avowed enemy.5 4
Yusuf Ali They ask thee what is lawful to them (as food) say Lawful unto you are (all) things good and pure and what ye have taught your trained hunting animals (to catch) in the manner directed to you by Allah; eat what they catch for you but pronounce the name of Allah over it and fear Allah; for Allah is swift in taking account.5 5
Yusuf Ali 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. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers but chaste women among the People of the Book revealed before your time when ye give them their due dowers and desire chastity not lewdness nor secret intrigues. If anyone rejects faith fruitless is his work and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).16 114
Yusuf Ali So eat of the sustenance which Allah has provided for you lawful and good; and be grateful for the favors of Allah if it is He whom ye serve.