Fish is haram 4 Quran Alone adept according to Sunni Cheikh
-
I understand your point, and do not argue with it until the last point. The people known as Nazarenes became known as Christians. The name Christian was used as an insult to the Nazarenes to begin with and just stuck, so the Nazarenes were named Christians by others.
Excerpt from Edip-Layth - End Note 22 (262) (QRT)
The Quran refers to the followers of the New Testament with the word Nasara (Nazarenes), rather than Masihiyyun (Christians). The root of the word has several implications. First, it might have originated from the Semitic word NaSaRa (to support), and originated from the answer given by the disciples of Jesus when he asked for their support for his cause (6114). Or, it could have originated from the birth place of Jesus, Nazareth. Perhaps, it has a linguistic and historical link to both origins. Also, see 582. Knowing the motive of the Gospel authors to establish a stronger messianic link between Jesus and King David, by binding him through genealogy and birthplace, some scholars of theology justifiably question whether Bethlehem was the actual birthplace of Jesus, as is commonly accepted. Though Matthew acknowledges the fact that Jesus was called Nazarene (Matthew 223), both Matthew and Luke mention Bethlehem as his birthplace. However, Mark, which was written earlier, mentions Nazareth as the birthplace of Jesus instead of Bethlehem "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan" (Mark 19). For the Biblical verses referring to Nazareth, see (Matthew 223; 413; 2111; 2671; Mark 19,24; 1047; 1467; 166; Luke 126; 24,39,51; 416,34; 1837; 2419; John 145-46; 185,7; 1919; Acts 222; 36; 410; 614; 1038; 228; 269).
According to Christian scholars, such as Easton, "The name Christian was given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch (Acts 1126). The names by which the disciples were known among themselves were 'brethren,' 'the faithful,' 'elect,' 'saints,' 'believers.' But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name 'Christian' came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but three times in the New Testament (Acts 1126; 2628; 1Peter 416)." It seems that some followers of Jesus adopted the name attributed to them by their enemies, and some continued using one of their earlier names, Nazarenes.
The jews' produce will be impure too because their rabbis partake in illicit acts, and are going from worse to worst, and in fact as for the "muslims", their people rely on them for guidance, so they idolise them, which is idol worship, the same goes for the "muslims" and their scholars.
And even if you accept that there is some monotheism foundation left in the current muslims, how about those idolising relics and saints like zaouias and mawalis, and how would you know that what you are eating is as pure as you think.
Lastly, don't you think that Allah wanted it to be this way until the day of judgment so that there is a kind of cleavage between all the sects, and the Truth set forth gets to shine as He promised. This is a final Prophecy which has not yet come to pass...As long as we dedicate our food to God (alone) by mentioning his name thereupon, we are fine. Note we must dedicate ALL of our food to God, not just meat like some 'muslims' think. Also, if we must rely on letting others mention God's name on our food, it would be guesswork, which, as we know, is not allowed.
Also, good point about 'muslim' and jewish idolaters.
-
Excerpt from Edip-Layth - End Note 22 (262) (QRT)
The Quran refers to the followers of the New Testament with the word Nasara (Nazarenes), rather than Masihiyyun (Christians). The root of the word has several implications. First, it might have originated from the Semitic word NaSaRa (to support), and originated from the answer given by the disciples of Jesus when he asked for their support for his cause (6114). Or, it could have originated from the birth place of Jesus, Nazareth. Perhaps, it has a linguistic and historical link to both origins. Also, see 582. Knowing the motive of the Gospel authors to establish a stronger messianic link between Jesus and King David, by binding him through genealogy and birthplace, some scholars of theology justifiably question whether Bethlehem was the actual birthplace of Jesus, as is commonly accepted. Though Matthew acknowledges the fact that Jesus was called Nazarene (Matthew 223), both Matthew and Luke mention Bethlehem as his birthplace. However, Mark, which was written earlier, mentions Nazareth as the birthplace of Jesus instead of Bethlehem "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan" (Mark 19). For the Biblical verses referring to Nazareth, see (Matthew 223; 413; 2111; 2671; Mark 19,24; 1047; 1467; 166; Luke 126; 24,39,51; 416,34; 1837; 2419; John 145-46; 185,7; 1919; Acts 222; 36; 410; 614; 1038; 228; 269).
According to Christian scholars, such as Easton, "The name Christian was given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch (Acts 1126). The names by which the disciples were known among themselves were 'brethren,' 'the faithful,' 'elect,' 'saints,' 'believers.' But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name 'Christian' came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but three times in the New Testament (Acts 1126; 2628; 1Peter 416)." It seems that some followers of Jesus adopted the name attributed to them by their enemies, and some continued using one of their earlier names, Nazarenes.
As long as we dedicate our food to God (alone) by mentioning his name thereupon, we are fine. Note we must dedicate ALL of our food to God, not just meat like some 'muslims' think. Also, if we must rely on letting others mention God's name on our food, it would be guesswork, which, as we know, is not allowed.
Also, good point about 'muslim' and jewish idolaters.
Thank you, you have just proved my point about the name handshake
-
Peace progressive,
something similar can be said of Palestine and the Palestinians whose names originate from the Philistines who were the "Biblical" Sea People living in today's Gaza, and the name was then hijacked by the Romans in the first century when they raided Jerusalem and the Canaan region, renaming it Phalestine as an insult to the Jews who used to be attacked by the Philistines until the victory of David over Goliath.
And so the Palestinians too kept the name... but it was a derisive Roman name originally... -
Salam,
For starter, you would not eat any meat, unless you slaughtered it yourself.
Not true at all. Living in the Middle East, I personally eat a lot of meat, and I am able do so as long as I can determine with some certainty that the name of God has been mentioned over the animal during slaughter. Now, as bad as the sunnis and shia are as you state with their shirk, they do not mention any name other than God when they slaughter (no Mohammed, no Ali - just God) -so, by defintion of 6118, such meat is permissible.
Now, if I were living in Europe/US where most food prepared is at the hands of atheists or christians who mention nothing when they slaughter/prepare their meat, by definition of 6121 such meat is 'vile/wicked' and not to be consumed. I would stick with fish and meat prepared by myself or sold by butchers than can be determined with some certainty to mention the name of God - very simple stuff.
You would not entrust any of your money to a bank, in fact no, you would not even deal in money, just in barter probably.
You are mixing apples with oranges. Lets stay on the topic of meat.
The jews' produce will be impure too because their rabbis partake in illicit acts, and are going from worse to worst, and in fact as for the "muslims", their people rely on them for guidance, so they idolise them, which is idol worship, the same goes for the "muslims" and their scholars. And even if you accept that there is some monotheism foundation left in the current muslims, how about those idolising relics and saints like zaouias and mawalis, and how would you know that what you are eating is as pure as you think.
Strange. I support my arguments with clear verses and you say it is a 'personal fatwa', yet, your entire paragraph above has no basis and goes against the simple and clear commands of 6118 and 6121 that simply require a word/name to be mentioned - which one of us is making a 'personal fatwa' I wonder.
how can you decide for Allah how to read for Him who is People of the Book and who is not after He read who they were in the Quran.
I forcefully disagree with you on pushing the envelope and reading Allah's mind regarding what He is about to do and how we humans will be involved in His end game.Why the complication? Either you have studied a topic and can show the evidence of what God says, or, you are not sure and are letting your feelings/emotions get the better of you (when they shouldn't). We are simply to 'hear and obey' when it comes to God's laws. God called the peope who advocate trinity and son of God and Jesus being God as "rejecters/kuffar", yet, it seems you would have us call them otherwise?
We have been given clear instructions on how to deal with the kuffar/rejecters
973 O prophet, strive against the rejecters and the hypocrites and be firm against them. Their dwelling is Hell, what a miserable
destiny!669 O prophet, strive against the rejecters and the hypocrites and be stern with them. Their abode is Hell, and a miserable destiny.
As for the 'people of the book', we have seperate commands/laws on how to deal with them - therefore, your conclusion, as passionate as it may be, is completely incorrect and in-fact woul create a conflict/contradiction as you would be trying to reconcile two seperate groups into being one group.
My posts here may seem long on this subject, but I find the matter to be most serious that it warrants much attention, especially that in not adhering to such, a person risks being a polytheist/mushrik
6121 And do not eat from that which the name of God has not been mentioned, for it is wickedness. And the devils they inspire their supporters to argue with you; and if you obey them, then you are polytheists.
-
Salam,
Not true at all. Living in the Middle East, I personally eat a lot of meat, and I am able do so as long as I can determine with some certainty that the name of God has been mentioned over the animal during slaughter. Now, as bad as the sunnis and shia are as you state with their shirk, they do not mention any name other than God when they slaughter (no Mohammed, no Ali - just God) -so, by defintion of 6118, such meat is permissible.
Peace
Do you eat fish after SLAUGHTER WITH THE NAME OF ALLAH"???
Regards -
Peace Layth
It is very ironic that since I made my tawba to sunnism for about 7 years, I did not touch meat other than halal, and I was so strict, I would also look into ingredients such as additives so the list of food, condiments, etc. which I was avoiding was huge.
Now since at that time I followed sunna, we had a talk from Sheikh Youcef AlQaradawi, who gave us a fatwa that actually the Christians were People of the Book, and that their food apart from pork was ok to eat.
Now that I moved on, I do not see why I will change my stance in the matter, especially that I am convinced that the current christians are people of the book, for me nothing has changed since the revelation, in fact we reverted to jahilia kubra, if not worse...
I do not wish to engage in a conversation with you on this as it will end up as a similar one on alcohol, where we will have to agree to disagree.
So I will take my chances, and thank you for the advice...
My life was miserable enough in a sunni straightjacket, and I do not wish to get it into a Layth one now, oki bro?
And you are right, I hear and obey Allah... not you...
Thanks though...
Salam
Noble -
The 'catch of the sea' has been made lawful for us at all times (596) - the slaughter issue is only relevant to the land animals.
Peace
Similar words are used for beasts of grazing and catch of the Sea ;It means you do not need to slaughter even the beasts of grazing because (according to you) Allah has made them Halaal.
Regards -
Salam/peace,
Similar words are used for beasts of grazing and catch of the Sea ;
It means you do not need to slaughter even the beasts of grazing because (according to you) Allah has made them Halaal.
51 O you who believe, honor your contracts. Made lawful for you are the animals of the livestock, except that which is being recited to
you. You are not permitted to hunt the game while you are under restriction. God decrees as He pleases. -
Salam brothers, Layth and all others that think that the people of the book can not be refere to as the modern christians with us but rather the ancient Nazarene sect that lived some thousand years ago. You assert that those who claimed that jesus is the son of God are the deviant sect which todays christians could be relate to. Because God says they are kufar's. Are you guys forgetting 930 were God informed us that the jews claimed Ezra to be God's son and the Nazarenes claimed jesus to be God's son. Now we know that the Nazarenes=Kufar's=christians. But it is important to note that not all christians take jesus to be son of God.
-
6121 Do not eat (ANYTHING, NOT JUST MEAT - e.g. BANANAS, CUCUMBERS, CANDY, etc.) from what God's name has not been mentioned, for it is vile. The devils inspire their supporters to argue with you; and if you obey them, then you have set up partners.
6145 Say, "I do not find in what is inspired to me forbidden to eat except that it be already dead, or blood poured forth, or the meat of pig, for it is foul; or (ANYTHING, NOT JUST MEAT - e.g. BANANAS, KITKAT, BREAD, etc.) what is corruptly dedicated to other than God." Whoever is forced without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is Forgiving, Compassionate.
The above verses talk about mentioning God's name on FOOD IN GENERAL. If you disagree, then please look at "blood poured forth" and "(anything) that is dedicated..." - these do not mention meat.
Another thing that disproves the Sunni/Shia 'zabiha halal'
54 They ask you what was made lawful to them, say, "All the good things have been made lawful for you, and what the trained dogs and birds catch; you teach them from what God teaches you." So eat from what they have captured for you and mention God's name upon it, and be aware of God. God is quick in reckoning.
Obviously we are not the one's who slaughter/kill the animal in the situation shown in the above verse - it is the hunting animals who do so. Consequently, we cannot mention God's name upon the prey while it is being killed/slaughtered. We are told that we are to MENTION GOD'S NANE AFTER THE HUNTING ANIMAL(S) HAS/HAVE KILLED THE PREY.
-
Salam/peace,
Islam 101 Do not quote 'out of context' as its ends up mishmaishing entire verses and their meanings.
51 O you who believe, honor your contracts. Made lawful for you are the animals of the livestock, except that which is being recited to
you. You are not permitted to hunt the game while you are under restriction. God decrees as He pleases.Peace
How does this exception RULES IN "slaughtering"?
Regards -
Obviously we are not the one's who slaughter/kill the animal in the situation shown in the above verse - it is the hunting animals who do so. Consequently, we cannot mention God's name upon the prey while it is being killed/slaughtered. We are told that we are to MENTION GOD'S NANE AFTER THE HUNTING ANIMAL(S) HAS/HAVE KILLED THE PREY.
The hunting animals are trained to catch and not to kill see the pic below if you wish i can show you more similar pics.pics
http//img41.imageshack.us/img41/3387/image018n.jpg
-
Peace Nabster,
Reading your posts, I see you are bringing a lot of 'baggage' into these topics which is possibly causing you some misery and also affecting your ability to reach a rational conclusion.
Just start with a clean slate...forget your sunni experience, forget all the past teachings...Start with the Quran and nothing else.
Regards,
-
Salam Justice,
Salam brothers, Layth and all others that think that the people of the book can not be refere to as the modern christians with us but rather the ancient Nazarene sect that lived some thousand years ago. You assert that those who claimed that jesus is the son of God are the deviant sect which todays christians could be relate to. Because God says they are kufar's. Are you guys forgetting 930 were God informed us that the jews claimed Ezra to be God's son and the Nazarenes claimed jesus to be God's son. Now we know that the Nazarenes=Kufar's=christians. But it is important to note that not all christians take jesus to be son of God.
Thank you for your post. After examining 930, I stand corrected. The Nazaranes & Christians are indeed one in the same and all are rejecters/kuffar (with the exception of those few who adhere to God alone).
The 'people of the book' it seems are none of these devient groups but are the people who have received the Torah/Injeel and are still upholding them 568.
-
Peace Layth,
It is much worse than that...
and in some little ways better as well...
very long story of my life...
thank you for your concern...
for now, i feel confident that the current christians and jews are people of the book, who among them have true muslims, and now
by extension the current "muslims" in general are also people of the book, who among them have true muslims...
I also do not reject all hadiths 100%, I have some extra criteria by which to judge them, e.g. any hadith that has to do with legislation is for me unacceptable, any hadith that favours a ruling elite is unacceptable, all hadiths that are used as tools of crowd control are also not acceptable, hadith that defame the Prophet are not acceptable, hadith used to exploit, coerce, manipulate are unacceptable, etc.
It does not leave much, but what interests me are historical fragments, or hints that could be used for further research scholarly, empirical or archeological, and even looking for relics to shed some light on the missing dots we are trying to decipher, and unfortunately since Imam Shafie put a straightjacket on scholars to justify any writings with hadith, it is my hope that despite that, there is some remnants of history that can be salvaged to give some further insights into the true history and timeline of the Prophet's life, and the timeline of the revelation of the Quran too...Peace Nabster,
Reading your posts, I see you are bringing a lot of 'baggage' into these topics which is possibly causing you some misery and also affecting your ability to reach a rational conclusion.
Just start with a clean slate...forget your sunni experience, forget all the past teachings...Start with the Quran and nothing else.
Regards,
-
Peace all,
In regard to the issue of "People of the Book" (POB)
It is clear that POB is a title that is given to the groups whom had received the Quran, Bible, and /or Torah regardless if they follow its correct teachings or misled by wrong teachings and became Mushreks and/ Kaffer.
Therefore, I disagree with Layth in this point.In regard to eating Dead animals
I believe, as Edip mentioned before, for a health reason, God is forbidden us to eat any animal that we find dead, either it is a fish, crab, squid, or a cow.
In regard to the Halal Meat
It is clear that the portion of Meat (or any kind of Food) that Christian, Jew, sunni, or Muslim offer in the name of any one (e.g., prophet Mohamed, Prophet Jesus, Sida Zinab (daughter of the prophet) in order to get his or her bless in order to reach God's bless, is not Halal for us to eat.
6145 Say, "I do not find in the revelations given to me any food that is prohibited for any eater except carrion, running blood, the meat of pigs, for it is contaminated, or anything (not just meat) blasphemously dedicated to other than God." If one is forced (to eat these), without being deliberate or malicious, then your Lord is Forgiver, Merciful.
If we do not have knowledge that the above was the case, it is Halal for us to eat (Because they are the people of the Book, either misguided or not)
On the other hand, we should not eat any animal that is killed by any one who is not from the POB.
Peace
-
Peace all,
In regard to eating Dead animals
I believe, as Edip mentioned before, for a health reason, God is forbidden us to eat any animal that we find dead, either it is a fish, crab, squid, or a cow.
6145 Say, "I do not find in the revelations given to me any food that is prohibited for any eater except carrion, running blood, the meat of pigs, for it is contaminated, or anything (not just meat) blasphemously dedicated to other than God." If one is forced (to eat these), without being deliberate or malicious, then your Lord is Forgiver, Merciful.
Peace
Brother !
You are right. All dead animal no matter what their category is are Haraam as per Quran
It includes
-land animals
-Sea animals
-BirdsRegards
