Pork & Logic
-
Dear Wakas,
Sorry, I missed the link at first. Got it now though, thanks.
Anyway, pork does not seem to be the worst kind of flesh for the human body, based on the various substances that are affecting our health.
It seems, therefore likely, that this is not an issue in the matter of forbidding this kind of meat rather than other types.
I lean towards health reasons not being grounds for the restrictions.Best regards
Ali Omar
-
Peace be upon you,
I also am leaning away from health reasons, there are just way too many unhealthy things for us to be only restricted of pigs meat.
I think it is more of a symbolism of a greedy individual. If you are what you eat, we should not "eat" pigs because greed is a killer of humanity.
-
Peace be upon you Elena,
No, I am not "saying" anything right now, only speculating.
What I am pondering is why would the God single out the pig, when there are MANY things that are detremental to our health.
When you study symbolism, you must look at the pig and its characteristics. Just like when one says that rich man will not enter heaven until a camel passes through the eye of a needle, one must study the camel. The God uses these animals to convey a message to us. This is my understanding, but not firm yet. This is all very new thought for me.
When you think of a pig, what characteristics come to mind? And why did Adam and his wife fall from the Garden?
-
Peace rossi,
The --> al
In arabic, an adjective has the same attributes as the word it's describing.
For example
The big (the)door --> albabou alkabirou.a big door --> baboun kabiroun. (no al for both words)
In this case, "kabiroun" is an adjective describing "bab", they both have to have al, or both without al for the statement to be correct gramaticaly. And both have the same finishing. (ou or oun)
Example 2
The door of the town --> babou almadinatiYou will notice that only "madinati" has an al, and not "babou". Thus "madinati" cannot be an adjective of babou, because
1- babou and madinati don't have the same finishing.
2- bab has no al, and madinat has an al.
So we know from the gramatical construction of the sentence that "madinat" is not an adjective for "bab".The case we have for "lahmou alkhinziri" is the same as example 2. So "khinziri" cannot be an adjective for "lahmou".
peace someone,
are you suggesting that the Qur'an arabic is 'grammatically wrong' or perhaps you are suggesting that our understanding of the Qur'anic arabic is 'faulty'?
is there a difference between 'modern arabic' and the 'classical arabic' of the Qur'an?salaam
-
Salaams idolfree,
please check out
122,1337,16103,20113,26195,3928,413,4144,427,433,4612.I think what allah is saying is the Book is written in plain Arabic so that one can easily understand,i don't know why you want to make things complicated by assuming its mostly symbolic.
Its the people handling and/or the translators who i think have muddled,it.
what do you think?
Salaam.
-
If we don't see any logical readon not to eat pork this can mean two things
- we don't have enough knowledge yet to know why,
OR
- we are forbidden to eat it, as an obeidience act. No other reason than "because God told us, and we accept it"
What do you think? The second reason reminds me of some martial art classes I was in when the teacher asked things just for the purpose of testing its students trust in him.
Does that makes sense? -
Peace be upon you MZ,
please check out
122,1337,16103,20113,26195,3928,413,4144,427,433,4612.Yes, I know that THIS reading(quran) was sent down in Arabic. I also remember that it is a confirmation of what was already here. How does this effect anything I have stated? Arabs do not use symbolism? In fact, aren't LETTERS symbols? Letters are only shapes that bring about an idea, and it is the same with pictures. You can have a physical picture in fornt of you, or you can visualize a picture in your head.
I think what allah is saying is the Book is written in plain Arabic so that one can easily understand,i don't know why you want to make things complicated by assuming its mostly symbolic.
But you see, easy and hard are all subjective, what is easy for one person can be hard for the next. I find that much more of the message has opened up to me by looking at it symbolically.
Its the people handling and/or the translators who i think have muddled,it.
what do you think?
I am still weighing the evidence, so far, symbolism is leading.
What I keep in mind is that this is nothing new, the pig has been used in symbolism for a long time.
-
Salaams idolfree,
so you think,Allah wanted us to guese at what the symbols meant?Any language is for communications,but obviosly symbols are/can be used aswell but only if the people you want to communicate a message to know what the definition of a symbols is -like in physics or chemistry,so accordingly Allah still needs then in your case to give us the definitions as i belive he hasnn't yet?Or has he?
Salaams.
-
Peace be upon you MZ,
Salaams idolfree,
so you think,Allah wanted us to guese at what the symbols meant?No, I think we are suppossed to reason them out just like we do everything.
Any language is for communications,but obviosly symbols are/can be used aswell but only if the people you want to communicate a message to know what the definition of a symbols is -like in physics or chemistry,so accordingly Allah still needs then in your case to give us the definitions as i belive he hasnn't yet?Or has he?
We are still debating definitions now that MOST of mankind disagree about, what is the difference? The God tells us to study the creation. Why?
We developed planes from studying birds
Submarines from fishso many lessons in the animals
(454) And in your creation, and what He scatters/distributes from a walker/creeper/crawler (are) signs to a nation being sure/certain
(2544) Or you think/suppose that most of them hear/listen or reason/comprehend , that they are except as the camels/livestock, but they are more misguided (in) a way/path
-
Peace All,
I'm closely following this discussion. It is certainly giving me something to think about.
Does anyone know or have any idea what Isa is referring to in the context of ?eating and storing in your houses?? Could this be a reference to any meat that will eventually rot?
? AND I INFORM YOU OF WHAT YOU SHOULD EAT AND WHAT YOU SHOULD STORE IN YOUR HOUSES; most surely there is a sign in this for you, if you are believers.
And a verifier of that which is before me of the Taurat and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord therefore be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me.
-
Peace be upon you Grourself,
I'm closely following this discussion. It is certainly giving me something to think about.
This is a fantastic discussion isn't it? D Who would have thought we would be discussing THIS! D
Does anyone know or have any idea what Isa is referring to in the context of ?eating and storing in your houses?? Could this be a reference to any meat that will eventually rot?
? AND I INFORM YOU OF WHAT YOU SHOULD EAT AND WHAT YOU SHOULD STORE IN YOUR HOUSES; most surely there is a sign in this for you, if you are believers.
Ithink that could be a PORTION of what is meant. To me, this verse is telling us that the God's WORD (symbolized by Jesus, son of Mary) will inform us what we should "EAT" , that is, what we should take in both mentally and physically as nourishment for our minds and bodies, and also what we "STORE IN OUR HOUSES", which implies what we KEEP in our MINDS and BODIES.
Remember that the God's "House" is the laws of the God which protect us from outside elements.
So we should make sure that what we bring into our houses (eat) and what we store thier is proper.
With that said, you make good sense because on the physical level, meat becomes bad for us when it stays in the stomach for too long. While it is not prohibited, it makes sense that we should not eat as much of it as many of us do. God's Word and Science should compliment each other, or should be one and the same.
And a verifier of that which is before me of the Taurat and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord therefore be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me.
WOW! Good verse! Yes, man makes so many things restricted, but the Gods Truth (His Word, born of the virgin mind) comes to set us free!
Go work Grourself D
-
Dear all,
My conclusion
Meat is not forbidden, of any animal, but we should avoid meat from animals that dies without being slaughtered, meat that is not fresh or well preserved, meat that is slaughtered in some ritualistic way, and blood.
We can overlook these limits only if we are forced to, out of necessity.In short, be careful with anything you eat that comes from animals.
Am I way off?
Best regards
Ali Omar
-
Salaam Ali,
According to you, is pork to eat? ?
salaam Zenje,
i think the pertinent question is...
is pork not to be eaten?
heck, just think, mankind had been eating 'pork' since 'the beginning..'
if 'pork is not to be eaten...why so? who said so?...
was it the the priests who had interpreted and said so...?
was it God who said so...?
we need to think carefully...
didn't God say not to prohibit things which He did not...?
do we play God...?
what did God mean when he mentioned 'kh z n r' not to be eaten?
does 'kh n z r' mean 'meat of pigs'?
does it mean 'rotting/rotten/bad' meat?
what does our common sense tell us...?
the question is not whether we should or not eat pork...
the question is, who do we follow?
God, or, the priests?peace.
-
Dear Zenje, rossi,
Right now I am not sure what to think, but the discussion here has led me to believe that pork is not forbidden, and I can not find any strong arguments for the opposite.
Best regards
Ali Omar
salaam Ali,
i feel the same way...
but the mental conditioning that has been ingrained in me against it, is so strong that i don't think i will be able to consciously eat it...
perhaps, i shall not worry too much about it nor be too obcessed with it...peace, bro.
-
Peace be upon you all,
Sorry that I am posting with nothing "real" to add to the discussion, but I just wanted to let you know that I am stuck in the same dilemma. It just doesn't make logical sense that pigs meat alone is restricted while so many other unhealthy meats and foods are out there. It strongly leans towards a SYMBOLIC meaning in my opinion on not being a greedy person. Greedy people grow from arrogance which comes from the ego. This is what casued the fall of "adam and his wife", they had rejecting thoughts(shayteen) from the mindset of desperation(iblis).
But I am still not thoroughly convinced. Does anyone have any opinions on the blood and other restrictions in those same verses? Is it possible to eat an animal without injesting blood in some way? (I am not the best of cooks so I am unsure, nor do I command the grill at any cookouts )
-
Peace Idol,
Daman Masfuhan=blood poured forth or running blood. (6146)
I've been thinking that the blood restriction is qualified by this verse. A little of even highly poisonous substances are not necessarily harmful and sometimes even helpful. Just a thought.
