Is Swine Hallal
-
SC,
PBMThe following questions/statements, are my answer to your questions.
No, they are not, as anyone reading my post can see it doesn't matter what the jews were allowed or not allowed. It's a red herring that you threw in.
Yes, they are the answers to your questions, and, no, no red herring at all. You and Tanveer assert that the Jews were given additional punishments, these are your words not mine so defend them . If what you assert is true, then you must establish the chronology for that assertion, meaning, when were these punishments added on...before the revealing of Al-Quran or after the revealing of Al-Quran, which is it?
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
In order for your additional punishment conjecture to translate into Quranic fact you must address the above two points, there is simply no way around this fact. You're jammed now, eh?
No more excuses; give us the chronology... if you can. wink
-
-
PB,
Let me acquaint you with the rules of debate. I have a post with certain points. You address those points. You have failed to address those points on multiple occasions all the while insisting on your own.That is NOT debate, that is enforcement.
What the jews were allowed OR not allowed is a RED HERRING because it is independent of your conclusion. In simpler words, whether jews were allowed pig meat OR not, does not mean that we can eat it too. If you are insisting on this point, it has proven to be independent of your conclusion as is mentioned in my posts, hence a red herring. If someone insists on throwing red herrings then that is called OBFUSCATION or hiding behind skirts because your argument is not good enough to stand on its own.
I said in page 1 of this thread
What's the deal then with the jews being allowed/not forbidden lahma khinzeerin and it's thus okay for all of us (in reality it is in blatant contradiction with many verses including 6147) when one does not accept lahma khinzeerin as pig meat? Because even IF lahma khinzeerin is not pig meat it's still HARAM to mankind which makes the former part of the argument inclusive of 6148 fall flat...
The real discussion and the only recourse, instead of focusing on flawed logic, is to PROVE that lahma khinzeerin is NOT pig meat...which is what has been done here many times with no conclusive results...You have insisted on NOT answering this point throughout let alone others. It would be a mistake to go after what the jews were allowed or not allowed as that is IRRELEVANT. The believers have their restrictions/exceptions made clear INDEPENDENT of what the jews were allowed.
Make up a seperate thread for "were these the ONLY restrictions" because it is IRRELEVANT to the topic of can we eat pig meat. Address my posts if you can.
-
Peace Priest Bokmei,
You and Tanveer assert that the Jews were given additional punishments, these are your words not mine
Someone who invents lies/conjectures about Allah can easily invent lies about humans too. I NEVER SAID ANYWHERE THAT JEWS WERE GIVEN ADDITIONAL PUNISHMENTS (which implies that restrictions in 6145 are punishments also). I said that Jews were given ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS as punishment. Not "additional punishments" but "additional restrictions because of punishment".
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
I am not a Jew so it does not matter to me what food is or was forbidden to Jews. All that matters to me is what food is forbidden for me per 6145, and that applies to Jews too, because Jews are part of mankind, and the other thing that matters to me is what food is LAWFUL to Jews per 55.
So all that matters to me is
- "the forbidden food" per 6145,
- "the lawful food for Jews" per 55.
The "forbidden food for Jews" per 6146 is of no concern to me.
Now that you have the replies from me, please answer my questions which have remained unanswered so far
Be it known that it has become blatantly obvious that PB has failed to come up with a reasonable answer to a SINGLE question posed by me or Nadia, time and again, and that he has eluded and/or completely failed to respond to the various points raised in our posts, thereby conclusively proving that he has no argument to support the lies/conjectures he is inventing and ascribing to Allah, and rejecting Allah's clear ayaat, based on his twisted, faulty and flawed logic.
He has persistently CONJECTURED as to what the meaning of "lahma khinzeerin" is, going against Qur'aanic context, logic, Arabic language and Arabic grammar, persistently rejected 6145 that clearly makes "lahma khinzeerin" haram for mankind and Jews (mankind includes Jews), and has persistently excluded Jews from mankind. He has also persistently CONJECTURED as to what exactly Jesus made lawful to Jews in 350.
Unless he answers our posts, and refrains from conjecturing, his case is closed.
-
Given that 6145 lists food made haram for mankind, and that mankind includes Jews, Why do you keep ignoring what Allah EXPLICITLY makes forbidden for Jews in 6145 ?
-
The "AND" at the beginning of 6146 clearly shows that 6146 is a CONTINUATION of 6145, so you cannot isolate 6146 from 6145. Why do you keep ignoring the "AND" at the beginning of 6146 and keep isolating 6146 from 6145 ? Also as Nadia pointed out, the phrase "that is a punishment for their rebellion" in 6146 also clearly shows that 6146 is a CONTINUATION of 6145, because the restrictions in 6146 are IN ADDITION TO the restrictions in 6145 for Jews. Do you mean to say that the foods mentioned in 6146 are the ONLY foods made haram for Jews ? So before their punishment ALL food was halal to them ?
Why do you keep rejecting parts of the word of Allah (e.g. 6145) ?
1338 And those to whom We have previously given the Scripture rejoice at what has been sent down to you, but there are some of the groups that reject parts of it.
- Given that Allah, in 6146, does not forbid the Jews to eat dead meat, blood, lahma khinzeerin, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah", hence, according to your twisted logic it was lawful to them, and ayat 55 states that their food and our food are halal for each other, dead meat, blood, lahma khinzeerin, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah", then has to be halal for mankind. But then that would contradict 6145 where Allah has clearly made dead meat, blood, lahma khinzeerin and "what is dedicated to other than Allah" HARAM FOR MANKIND, WHICH INCLUDES JEWS. How will you explain that ?
Additional question for you
- Given that "rijsun" is the word used by Allah in 6145 to mean "bad/unclean/dirty/filthy", how can you say that "khinzeerin" used in the same ayat is also an adjective of "lahma" meaning the same as "rijsun". It is like saying
"made haram is meat that is bad/dirty ("khinzeerin"), because it is bad/dirty" (khinzeerin as adjective according to your conjecture)
which makes no sense and it is redundant to use 2 adjectives meaning the same, for the same noun; instead
"made haram is meat of pig ("khinzeerin"), because it is bad/dirty" (khinzeerin as noun)
makes perfect sense.
Give me ONE example from Qur'aan where Allah has used 2 adjectives in a row, meaning the same, for the same noun.
Looking forward to your reply to my questions, as well as Nadia's questions that you rudely, and disrespectfully, have not answered so far.
-
-
SaLaM
And mine either ( . Dont make me do half your word PB. But since im SUCH A NICE GUY, i will http//www.geocities.com/bigjaxal/s1.gif
The arabic word for Pig is .................
The arabic word for Unclean is .................There. All you have to do now is just fill in the blanks. Easy init?
-
Salaam all,
Well it seems like PB is out on deep water now
I have read over and over again 6145-146 in Quran and I cannot understand it in another way that it might have been so that the jews were allowed to eat pig.But when this verse came they shouldn't eat pig if they concider themselves as truebelievers.
But what have this to do with us who concider us believers?
We don't care what the jews were doing and what they were eating, because we must be aware what to do now when we are living.
Nearly all knows that pork isn't healthy so why make it halal?
Are you PB longing for a porkchop?
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Salaam all,
If you all look into the verse 55 Today, the good things have been made lawful to you, and the food of those who have been given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them........
You can see that here must pork have been forbidden because otherwise we cannot eat the food of the people of the Scripture, right.
We shouldn't play with the word of God and PB what are you trying to prove here?
That Quran is wrong or what?
Beware of the punishments from God the Almighty!
Peace
Sis Majidah -
SC,
Let me acquaint you with the rules of debate.
Thanks.
What the jews were allowed OR not allowed is a RED HERRING because it is independent of your conclusion. In simpler words, whether jews were allowed pig meat OR not, does not mean that we can eat it too.
LOL! does not matter?! This is patently crazy and does noting to defend your assertion! O.k., let's say that the Jews, a People of the Book , were allowed to eat pig. With that being the case, then per ayat ayat 55, pig is halal for so-called muslims to eat. Further, if the Jews were allowed to eat pig and you reject that, then, you are defiance of ayat 55
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....
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.
If you are insisting on this point, it has proven to be independent of your conclusion as is mentioned in my posts, hence a red herring. If someone insists on throwing red herrings then that is called OBFUSCATION or hiding behind skirts because your argument is not good enough to stand on its own.
LOL! Oh stop, will you. You've proved nothing and my arguments are based squarely on Quranic facts and this is why you and Tanveer, will not answer the following
You and Tanveer assert that the Jews were given "ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS as punishment", these are your words not mine so defend them. If what you assert is true, then you must establish the chronology for that assertion, meaning, when were these additional restrictions as punishments added on...before the revealing of Al-Quran or after the revealing of Al-Quran, which is it? You cannot escape the necessity for establishing a choronology, unless, you just insist on ignoring the following ayat
350 "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
Please, tell us...when did Jesus fulfill this part of his mission...before or after the coming of Al-Quran?
Stop with the excuse making, going off on tangents, and otherwise stalling, and address the following
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
In order for your ..."ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS as punishment" conjecture to translate into Quranic fact, you must address the above two points, there is simply no way around this fact. You're jammed now, eh?
-
-
PEACE, TANVEER,
Not "additional punishments" but "additional restrictions because of punishment".
My God, what double talk. Are you really getting this desperate?
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
I am not a Jew so it does not matter to me what food is or was forbidden to Jews. All that matters to me is what food is forbidden for me per 6145, and that applies to Jews too, because Jews are part of mankind, and the other thing that matters to me is what food is LAWFUL to Jews per 55.
So all that matters to me is
- "the forbidden food" per 6145,
- "the lawful food for Jews" per 55.
The "forbidden food for Jews" per 6146 is of no concern to me.
Now that you have the replies from me, please answer my questions which have remained unanswered so far
You've not address my question concerning the chronology of events. This was my reply to SC, please address the chronology.
SC What the jews were allowed OR not allowed is a RED HERRING because it is independent of your conclusion. In simpler words, whether jews were allowed pig meat OR not, does not mean that we can eat it too.
TANVEER I am not a Jew so it does not matter to me what food is or was forbidden to Jews. All that matters to me is what food is forbidden for me per 6145, and that applies to Jews too, because Jews are part of mankind, and the other thing that matters to me is what food is LAWFUL to Jews per 55.
LOL! does not matter?! This is patently crazy and does noting to defend your assertion! O.k., let's say that the Jews, a People of the Book , were allowed to eat pig. With that being the case, then per ayat ayat 55, pig is halal for so-called muslims to eat as well! Further, if the Jews were allowed to eat pig and you reject this, then, you are defiance of ayat 55
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....
You and SC, assert that the Jews were given "ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS as punishment". If what you assert is true, then you must establish the chronology for that assertion, meaning, when were these additional restrictions as punishments added on...before the revealing of Al-Quran or after the revealing of Al-Quran, which is it? You cannot escape the necessity for establishing a choronology, unless, you just insist on ignoring the following ayat
350 "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
Please, tell us...when did Jesus fulfill this part of his mission...before or after the coming of Al-Quran?
Stop with the excuse making, going off on tangents, and otherwise stalling, and address the following
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
In order for your ..."ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS as punishment" conjecture to translate into Quranic fact, you must address the above two points, there is simply no way around this fact.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
-
PEACE, TO ALL,
If you all look into the verse 55 Today, the good things have been made lawful to you, and the food of those who have been given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them........
You can see that here must pork have been forbidden because otherwise we cannot eat the food of the people of the Scripture, right.
Well, if you are correct Sweden, then post the verses where pig was prohibited to the People of the Book i.e. Jews and Christians.
We shouldn't play with the word of God and PB what are you trying to prove here?
I'm not playing, I assure you of that.
That Quran is wrong or what?
No, but yours and the some of the others translations are wrong.
Beware of the punishments from God the Almighty!
Oh, I am...are you? I hope you will avail yourself of your own advice and make certain that you are in compliance of ayats 733 and 1736
733 Say the things that my Lord hath indeed forbidden are shameful deeds...and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge.
1736 And pursue not that of which you have no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning).
Well it seems like PB is out on deep water now
On the contray, it is Sc, Tanveer, who are out in deep water and that is why they refuse to address the following
You and Tanveer assert that the Jews were given "ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS as punishment", these are your words not mine so defend them. If what you assert is true, then you must establish the chronology for that assertion, meaning, when were these additional restrictions as punishments added on...before the revealing of Al-Quran or after the revealing of Al-Quran, which is it? You cannot escape the necessity for establishing a choronology, unless, you just insist on ignoring the following ayat
350 "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
Please, tell us...when did Jesus fulfill this part of his mission...before or after the coming of Al-Quran?
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
I have read over and over again 6145-146 in Quran and I cannot understand it in another way that it might have been so that the jews were allowed to eat pig.But when this verse came they shouldn't eat pig if they concider themselves as true believers. Nearly all knows that pork isn't healthy so why make it halal?[/
The problem you, Sc, and Tanveer have is this. Ayat 146, explicitly states that, the only category of animals Allah made haram for Jews to eat was...animals with claws. Do you know of any pigs with claws? This being the case then
-
it is clear that Jews were never forbidden to eat pig in the first place!
-
If pig, which you claim is "unhealthy" and others claim is dirty/foul, and is now haram for mankind and the Jews, why then did Allah allow righteous people i.e. Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph and ALL of their people...to eat it? If the pig is unhealthy/dirty/foul at the time of the revealing of ayat 6145, then it would have had to have been unhealthy/dirty/foul long before that. So, were these prior people forbidden to eat pig? Yes or no? Do you know?
We don't care what the jews were doing and what they were eating, because we must be aware what to do now when we are living.
You HAVE to care what Jews were doing or not doing, at least, in regard to food, because Allah in ayat 55 refers us back to them concerning food. What are you talking about?!
-
-
SaLaM PB
Brother, why are ignoring my very simple question? If you dont know the answer, then say it so we can help you. How can you be making any arguments when you dont even know the correct words for pig and unclean. Atleast SM knows what she is talking about. So maybe YOU should be paying attention to verse 7.33 instead of SM http//www.geocities.com/bigjaxal/s1.gif
-
Salaam PB,
You really want to have that porkchop!?
So go and eat it we will not stop you if you are so blind.
But don't come here and play God!
Peace
Sis Majidah
-
Peace,
You really want to have that porkchop!?
So go and eat it we will not stop you if you are so blind.
But don't come here and play God!
Please refrain from such revolting remarks and keep to the discussion at hand. I believe PB has a point to which I am studying and understanding its relevancy from all angles. Be patient and give yourself time and thought.
-
Salaam Danish,
PB doesn't want to listen to someone else he just keep on to his own opinions and that is not a fair debate.
Everyone can see that God has forbidden us to eat pork, do you think God is playing with us!?
I mean only because there is a verse telling us that all good food is allowed for both jews and the rest of the mankind it doesn't lead us to that conclusions that pork is allowed.
He is walking in circles with his claims.
I even don't know if the guy is muslim or not, maybe he is a jew after all.
Hey, this is serious man he is trying to make swine halal!!!!!
And I can clearly say that verse 6145-146 is for all true believers so the jews should eat like us and not follow those old restrictions.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Peace Sweden Majidah,
I agree with Danish. Your comments were completely out of line. Either refute the argument or bow out of the debate.
You really want to have that porkchop!?
So go and eat it we will not stop you if you are so blind.
But don't come here and play GodPeace,
Tay -
salaam Tay,
I don't regret what I have said because I use to hold what I preach )
But I can leave if you wish that so very much, i will not disturb you sensitive Americans lol
BYEEEEEE
Sis Majidah
-
Peace Sis Majidah,
He is walking in circles with his claims.
I even don't know if the guy is muslim or not, maybe he is a jew after all.
Hey, this is serious man he is trying to make swine halal!!!!!No one can force you to believe unless you start believing. So take it easy and relax. )>-
Anwar Azim
-
PB,
LOL! does not matter?! This is patently crazy and does noting to defend your assertion!
LOL! If you say so, did you address and refute any of my points in the post? No you didn't.
O.k., let's say that the Jews, a People of the Book , were allowed to eat pig. With that being the case, then per ayat ayat 55, pig is halal for so-called muslims to eat. Further, if the Jews were allowed to eat pig and you reject that, then, you are defiance of ayat 55
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....
No one is in defiance of anything except those who take one part of the quran and reject and/or ignore the rest.
Let me make it very simple and concise
IF the jews were NOT forbidden swine, you still can't eat it because you can't take one verse out of context and ignore the restrictions that tell you what the lawful/good/unrestricted food is. The restrictions are what make the good/lawful/unrestricted food known to us, as ALL of the good/lawful/unrestricted foods are NOT specified/named in the quran, but the restrictions ARE. Thus anything NOT restricted is lawful = good, OR as in 55, "This day are things Not Restricted (Good) made lawful to you".
An illustration would be
51 O you who believe, you shall fulfill your covenants. Permitted for you to eat are the livestock, except those specifically prohibited herein. You shall not permit hunting throughout Hajj pilgrimage. GOD decrees whatever He wills.
ALL livestock = lawful = good, UNLESS Restricted/prohibited/haram.
An illustration would be
- O you who believe, eat of the good things We have provided for you, and be thankful to God; if it is Him you serve.
One verse taken tells us of NO restrictions. If we didn't read anything else it would tell us of no restrictions but to eat of the good things which one could assume meant, make up our own mind regarding what is good stuff out of everything. This is NOT the case, since if one reads other verses in the quran, one would realise that good is everything lawful OR NOT restricted. Therefore, one could tell the good/lawful/unrestricted food by looking at the restrictions.
With this in mind, we look at 55, it says ALL the good/unrestricted things are made lawful to you and in the same verse 'the food of the people of the book is lawful to us and ours to them'. The good/lawful things are the things which are NOT restricted. It can't get any more obvious than that.
55
- ALL good/unrestricted food is made lawful to us. (Good food = Lawful food = Not Restricted food)
- Food of the people of the book is lawful to us UNLESS restricted.
- You can't take the statement 'the food of the people of the book is lawful to us and ours to them' out of context and say huzzah! No restrictions, because in the same verse we have point 1).
3a) If this statement is taken out of context and meant to assume that because pig meat is not mentioned for people of the book, therefore we can eat it, then what about the restrictions of pig meat already on us AND the other 10 restrictions along with it? Can we eat dead meat too? After all they are not mentioned for the 'people of the book' as being haram. roll
So even IF the jews were allowed pig OR the christians were allowed pig you can't eat it because it comes under the restricted category of food. All good food = lawful food = unrestricted food.
LOL! Oh stop, will you. You've proved nothing and my arguments are based squarely on Quranic facts and this is why you and Tanveer, will not answer the following
LOL! Oh stop, will you giggle... You feel the need to boost your morale everytime you post apparently...some sort of war cry is it? Before whining about why oh why won't you answer my questions, take a look at your own track record for ignoring posts...it's quite an impressive one.
You and Tanveer assert that the Jews were given "ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS as punishment", these are your words not mine so defend them.
What a lovely statement here...YOU are the one who claims the they were the ONLY restrictions further reduced with NO ayat to back it up. Can you defend your claim? After all, your claim came first.
Instead of defending your own stance you start attacking others in the hope that no one will see your own position. We did refute your claim regarding ONLY restrictions, and you still haven't managed to refute ours, let alone answer to multiple posts...instead you magically come up with more questions to throw the scent off...in a different direction, aka RED HERRINGS...
If what you assert is true, then you must establish the chronology for that assertion, meaning, when were these additional restrictions as punishments added on...before the revealing of Al-Quran or after the revealing of Al-Quran, which is it? You cannot escape the necessity for establishing a choronology, unless, you just insist on ignoring the following ayat
350 "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
Please, tell us...when did Jesus fulfill this part of his mission...before or after the coming of Al-Quran?
If what we assert is not true refute the points presented in our multiple posts instead of concocting what you think we should do in order to defend them, they are nothing but RED HERRINGS...God tells us in the quran that these additional restrictions were placed on them in the past...and unless you can give us the ayat where Jesus uses his authority and what he uses it on, STOP conjecturing about what Jesus did OR did NOT do...please post the ayat, thanks!
Stop with the excuse making, going off on tangents, and otherwise stalling, and address the following
Do you practice what you preach? If you do, then address the multiple posts that you have run away from, Thanks!
edited to add
-
Salaam Savage Carrot,
Good girl!
I think you have said it all, so now we have to wait and see what excuses he comes up with!
I don't like when people take verses out of context they are supposed to be read together, but PB like to do this.
I still really wonder why he is doing this!?
Peace
Sis Majidah -
SC,
51 O you who believe, you shall fulfill your covenants. Permitted for you to eat are the livestock, except those specifically prohibited herein. You shall not permit hunting throughout Hajj pilgrimage. GOD decrees whatever He wills.
ALL livestock = lawful = good, UNLESS Restricted/prohibited/haram.
An illustration would be
51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you, not violating the prohibition against game when you are entering upon the performance of the pilgrimage; surely Allah orders what He desires.
51 Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo awfoo bilAAuqoodi ohillat lakum baheematu alanAAami illa ma yutla AAalaykum ghayra muhillee assaydi waantum hurumun inna Allaha yahkumu ma yureed
Main Entry BAHIMATUN beast. any quadruped, even if in the water. Bahimat Al-Anam. Quadrupeds which belong to the class of cattle or which resemble cattle or any beast which resembles domesticated cattle in so far as it feeds on plants and is not a beast of prey. The Dictionary of the Holy Quran, by Omar Abdul Mannan
Main Entry QUADRUPED an animal having four feet.
Main Entry CATTLE domesticated quadrupeds held as property or raised for use.
The carnivores are quadrupeds with keen eyesight and sense of smell. They possess not only the necessary speed to overtake their prey but they also have sharp, retractable claws which enables them to pull their victims to the ground and hold them fast. The anatomy of natural omnivores, such as the bear or raccoon, is almost identical, except they possess a set of molars to chew the plant foods that they eat.
Herbivorous creatures such as sheep and cattle have a digestive tract 30 times the length of their bodies; they have several stomachs, which allows them to break down cellulose--something humans are unable to do. This is why we can't graze or live on grass. The urine and saliva of the herbivores are alkaline, and their saliva contains ptyalin for the predigestion of starches. The frugivores (gorillas, chimpanzees and other primates) have intestinal tracts twelve times the length of the body, clawless hands and alkaline urine and saliva. Their diet is mostly vegetarian, occassionally supplemented with carrion, insects, etc...
http//64.233.161.104/search?q=cacheI56rMD6knagJwww.all-creatures.org/murti/polveg-05.html+do+quadrupeds+have+claws&hl=en
Well, it looks like quadrupeds don't have claws, eh?, hence, not forbidden to the Jews. Given the above ayat and definitions then, pigs, come under the class of lawful animal--quadrupeds.
Let me make it very simple and concise
IF the jews were NOT forbidden swine, you still can't eat it because you can't take one verse out of context and ignore the restrictions that tell you what the lawful/good/unrestricted food is.
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.
53 Forbidden to you (for food) are dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine,
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.
Well, if you want to agree that the Jews were not forbidden to eat pig, you still have a major problem, to wit Ayat 55 tells us that...the food of the people of the Book is lawful to us and vice versa. Well, with this in mind then, what does Al-Quran tell us about lawful food and lawful food of the Jews? Simply this, Allah, has made quadrupeds lawful for all to eat. The pig is, without doubt,...a quadruped and, per ayat 6146, is also clawless, hence, the Jews, were never forbidden, by Allah anyway, to eat it.
Now, given that Allah says their food is halal to us and given that the clawless quarduped pig was not haram for them, if khinzerin means pig, then ayats 51 and 53, are in contradiction with 55. Remember this as well, Allah, in regard to the haram food of Jews says..."haram for them were the animals with claws". Allah, makes haram an entire category of animals. If pig is haram for us to eat, why then, did Allah simply not say...the pig is forbidden to eat, period? Why only the lahma/flesh? Ayat 51, if translated properly, says
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.
53 Forbidden to you (for food) are dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine...
Now, ALL four-footed animals are halal, except with the exceptions named The ayat, as you can see, makes no mention of...PARTS of the four-footed animal being haram, but the four-footed quadruped/animal(s) in total being haram. Now, the question becomes...what four footed animal(s)/quadruped(s) are not halal? Keep in mind that, ayat 53 says LAHMA KHINZERIN/THE FLESH OF SWINE. Flesh of pig, as you agreed to earlier, is a PARTICULAR PART of the pig, hence, the animal in total cannot be haram. If the animal is not haram in total, then 53 contradicts 51
I'm still waiting for a clear and coherent Quranic explanation from you and Tanveer on the following
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
-
If pig, which you claim is "unhealthy" and others claim is dirty/foul, and is now haram for mankind and the Jews, why then did Allah allow righteous people i.e. Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph and ALL of their people...to eat it? If the pig is unhealthy/dirty/foul at the time of the revealing of ayat 6145, then it would have had to have been unhealthy/dirty/foul long before that. So, were these prior people forbidden to eat pig? Yes or no? Do you know?
Looking forward to your reply.
-
-
PEACE, DANISH,
Thanks for addressing SM's, obnoxious comments.
I believe PB has a point to which I am studying and understanding its relevancy from all angles. Be patient and give yourself time and thought.
It goes without saying that, you possess great skill for articulation, coherency, summary and organization. With this acknowledged, I'm looking forward to, pro OR con, your conclusions of this debate.
Peace.