Is Swine Hallal
-
Salaam Br Jaxal,
I can assure you that is fine to eat those seedless grapes and in Quran it doesn't say anything of seedless herbs or vegetables/fruits.
And I believe that the jews got those restrictions because of their sins, therefore God show us in Quran new rules for the believers, why should we follow their punishments!?
One intresting thing is can the fat and bones and skins of pig being halal?
Then it isn't haram to eat gelatine!?
Well I'm not eating gelatine myself because I'm a vegetarian and I choose agar agar from the sea instead of gelatine.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
And I believe that the jews got those restrictions because of their sins, therefore God show us in Quran new rules for the believers, why should we follow their punishments!?
I don't know how much of what you just said is to be taken literally, but I'm absolutely certain that God doesn't punish us after have commited a sin by stripping us of the numbers of dietical options in our lives. Rather is this a way to describe what has happened.
tja!
/St?phane -
therefore God show us in Quran new rules for the believers
There are no new rules in the quran, verse 55 says everything that is unlawful/lawful to the people of the book is also unlawful/lawful to muslims and there is nothing new that has been added or taken away from those food laws.
"and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them"
There is no difference between food laws of the OT and the quran other than the fact the the OT goes into more detail
-
Swine is Unlawful because it is already unlawful to the people of the book and since what is unlawful to them is also unlawful to muslims as per verse 55
Albion,
Little confused with your position. Who is right according to your scriptures? The Jews or the Christians? If this is said in their books why do christians eat pork?
I don't understand...
-
PEACE, SWEDEN MAJIDAH AND ALL,
One intresting thing is can the fat and bones and skins of pig being halal? Then it isn't haram to eat gelatine!?
The key ayat in this discussion is the following
6146 And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.
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.
Clearly, in ayat 6146, Allah did not prohibit the Jews from eating swine. If swine were indeed haram for them, why, then, did Allah not mention it ayat 6146 as one of the haram things for Jews? Ayat 350 states that Jesus, was told to make part of what what was forbidden the Jews lawful, although, Allah doesn't state in Quran what it was. Some want to fall back on what is said in the Torah, however, Allah has made also clear that the Jews tampered with the Law of Moses and made some things unlawful for themselves.
Main Entry LAHAMA/FLESH flesh; the soft tissue of the body of a verterbrate, covering the bones and consisting mainly of skeletal bone and fat; the surface of the human body. American Heritage Dictionary 4th Edition
Main Entry SHAHAMA fat suet.
Above, is the definition for flesh, hence, it is a particular part of animal. As you've pointed out, gelatin, is not flesh, but from the fat of pigs or other animals. Thus, gelatin, cannot be haram, because it is not lahma/flesh, but fat tissue. With this in mind then, if Allah had intended that muslims not eat the pig, why then didn't He simply say...forbidden to you as food is the swine? This simple phrasing, as with the term zina, would be comprehensive and would have left no loop holes...for the believers anyway. Also, given that gelatin is made from fat, why, then, did Allah, as in the case of the Jews, not forbid the fat/shahama of the swine? As Allah chooses His terms, clearly then, flesh/lahma and fat/shahama, are not the same thing.
As nothing can escape the knowledge of Allah, it is not possible that He could not have foreseen the flesh versus fat/gelatin argument, as this would have constituted a discrepancy within His Quran.
Why ayats 6146 and 55 are so pivotal to the question the swine being haram or not for humanity, is because the one thing humanity can count on is that, Al-Quran is the unadulterated truth from Allah . With this in mind then, humanity knows for certain what Allah forbade the Jews, there simply is no question about this. Now, given that nowhere in Al-Quran does Allah forbid the Jews to eat swine, hence, it was lawful to them, and ayat 55 states that their food and out food are halal for each other, lahma khinzeerin, then, cannot mean the animal pig.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
Salaam Br St?phane,
How are you Brother?You haven't replied on my mail to you.
In this verse below is mention that the food restriction was a punishment for their rebellious behaviour it was that I meant in my comment.
6146 And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
salaam Priest Bokmei,
Well I'm not convinced yet because I know that I have read in the OT that swine was forbidden for the jews.
But do you think that is one of the errors in OT?
But if swine is haram for muslims why is it so strange to think it must have been haram also for the jews!?
Well there are many ??????? left.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
SaLaM My Lovely Big Sis
Yes you are right. Seedless green grapes ARE halal to eat. I will choose to believe in these two verses
He Has only forbidden for you what is already dead, and the blood, and the meat of pig, and what was dedicated to other than God. Whoever finds himself forced out of need and without disobedience or animosity, then there is no sin upon him. God is Forgiving, Merciful.
He only made forbidden for you what is already dead, and blood, and the meat of pig, and what was sacrificed to any other than God. But whoever is forced to without disobedience or transgression, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.
I dont know of any food which was halal for them BUT is haram for US. By the way, have any of you had camel meat? Its so nice!
-
Salaam Br Jaxal,
Yes those verses are the ones i use to refer to, nice that you remembered them.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
PEACE, SWEDEN MAJIDAH, JAXAL,
Well I'm not convinced yet because I know that I have read in the OT that swine was forbidden for the jews.
6146 And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion.
393 All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, except what Israel Made unlawful for itself, before the Law (of Moses) was revealed. Say "Bring ye the Law and study it, if ye be men of truth."
Again, you must keep in mind that Al-Quran is the Guidance/the Law to mankind and not the Law of Moses or O.T./N.T. Although Allah on occasion has told mankind to refer back to the Law of Moses concerning a particular item, i.e. "that the Messenger is mentioned in their scriptures", He nas not told mankind to refer to Law of Moses for its guidance along with Al-Quran. With this in mind then, if swine was actually forbidden to the Jews in the Law of Moses, why, then, does Allah not confirm this in His ayat 6146 or tell mankind to refer back to the Law of Moses for its dietary guidance?
But do you think that is one of the errors in OT?
In ayat 6146, Allah tells us exactly what He forbade the Jews and ayat 393 makes it clear the Jews made some things unlawful on their own, hence, whatever we find written in the Law of Moses which contradicts ayat 6146, must be additions/fabrications.
But if swine is haram for muslims why is it so strange to think it must have been haram also for the jews!?
55 This day (all) the good things are allowed to you; and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them...
Until you or anyone else can find in Al-Quran where Allah forbade the Jews to eat swine, then, Allah, per ayat 55, in fact, has not made the swine haram for muslims. If swine is haram for muslims then ayats 53, 55 and 6146 create a discrepancy. In order to justify not eating swine muslims must go outside of Al-Quran to do this. There simply is no denying these facts.
Well there are many ??????? left.
What questions remain?
Your comment about gelatin also proves that lahma khanzeerin cannot be referring to swine as being haram. Did you really read and understand the following from my last post to you
Main Entry LAHAMA/FLESH flesh; the soft tissue of the body of a verterbrate, covering the bones and consisting mainly of skeletal bone and fat; the surface of the human body. American Heritage Dictionary 4th Edition
Main Entry SHAHAMA fat suet.
Above, is the definitions for flesh and fat, hence, flesh, is a particular part of animal. As you've pointed out, gelatin is not flesh, but from the fat of pigs or other animals. Thus, gelatin cannot be haram, because it is not lahma/flesh, but fat tissue. With this in mind then, if Allah had intended that muslims not eat the pig, why then didn't He simply say...forbidden to you as food is the swine? This simple phrasing, as with the term zina, would be comprehensive and would have left no loop holes...for the believers anyway. Also, given that gelatin is made from fat, why, then, did Allah, as in the case of the Jews, not forbid the fat/shahama of the swine? As Allah chooses His terms, clearly then, flesh/lahma and fat/shahama, are not the same thing.
Looking forward to your questions.
-
Peace Priest Bokmei,
With this in mind then, humanity knows for certain what Allah forbade the Jews, there simply is no question about this. Now, given that nowhere in Al-Quran does Allah forbid the Jews to eat swine, hence, it was lawful to them, and ayat 55 states that their food and out food are halal for each other, lahma khinzeerin, then, cannot mean the animal pig.
According to your logic, 6148 also does not mention blood, dead meat and what was dedicated to other than The God as being haram for the Jews, so then are they also halal according to 57 ? This will create an even bigger discrepancy/contradiction according to you and then you will have to re-translate "blood", "dead meat", "what was dedicated to other than The God" also. shock ? hmm
IMHO 6148 mentions ONLY that food that was made haram to The Jews as a result of punishment of their rebellion, and NOT ALL HARAM FOOD. The wording and grammar of 6148 supports that. Notice that this list of haram food for Jews comes RIGHT AFTER the list of haram food for mankind, and starts with "AND" which implies that the list for Jews is in addition to the 4 categories of haram food mentioned in 6147, and that additional haram foods were as punishment for their rebellious behavior. idea
6147 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." Whoever is forced without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.
6148 AND for the Jews We have forbidden all that have claws; and from the cattle and the sheep We forbade their fat except what is attached to the back, or entrails, or mixed with bone. That is a punishment for their rebellion, and We are truthful.
The "and" at the start of 6148 implies that the additional categories of haram food for the Jews was a punisment for their rebellion, and was an addition to the 4 categories of haram food for mankind. Otherwise you think that the Jews were being punished by making the blood, dead meat, and what is dedicated to other than The God halal for them ????? and making for them haram ONLY animals with claws and fat of cattle and sheep ????? idea
According to your logic, "lahma khinzeerin", whatever you translate it as, would be lawful to Jews too as it is not made haram in 6148 and that will again cause the "supposed/presumed" contradiction, and your re-translation will STILL NOT RESOLVE THE SUPPOSED/PRESUMED CONTRADICTION LOOP. idea
IMO as I have explained above, there is no contradiction between 6147, 6148 and 57 with the current translation of khinzeer meaning pig.
55 is 57 in the Warsh version.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
PEACE, TANVEER, MD
PBM With this in mind then, humanity knows for certain what Allah forbade the Jews, there simply is no question about this. Now, given that nowhere in Al-Quran does Allah forbid the Jews to eat swine, hence, it was lawful to them, and ayat 55 states that their food and out food are halal for each other, lahma khinzeerin, then, cannot mean the animal pig.
According to your logic, 6148 also does not mention blood, dead meat and what was dedicated to other than The God as being haram for the Jews, so then are they also halal according to 57 ? This will create an even bigger discrepancy/contradiction according to you and then you will have to re-translate "blood", "dead meat", "what was dedicated to other than The God" also. shock ? hmm
I have no idea what you are talking about here, Tan. Allah, per ayat 646, specifically, mentions the Jews in regard to what food was made haram to them. Do you deny this? You will also notice that ayat 6146 contradicts what is written in the Law of Moses. The question then is...which book is correct? I say Al-Quran...what do you say? You simply extrapolating in your above comment. Extrapolation is conjecture not knowledge/fact.
IMHO...In my humble opinion.
I responded to this phrase on the following thread. Please respond there, thanks
IS OPINION/CONJECTURE, RELATIVE TO ALLAH AND DEEN...LYING?
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4013
IMHO 6148 mentions ONLY that food that was made haram to The Jews as a result of punishment of their rebellion, and NOT ALL HARAM FOOD. The wording and grammar of 6148 supports that. Notice that this list of haram food for Jews comes RIGHT AFTER the list of haram food for mankind, and starts with "AND" which implies that the list for Jews is in addition to the 4 categories of haram food mentioned in 6147, and that additional haram foods were as punishment for their rebellious behavior. idea
Once again you are extrapolating/conjecturing. I ask you what I asked Sweden Majidah, Naxus and Jaxal...where in Al-Quran, the Book of Law/Guidance to mankind, does Allah make swine haram for the Jews to eat? This is the key question, especially, given the the fact that, ayat 55 makes their food and our food halal for each other. Allah, in ayat 6146, makes it clear what He forbade the Jews to eat--until the coming of Jesus . Given that Allah makes no mention of the Jews being forbidden to eat swine, and lahma means flesh and not shahama--fat, how is flesh of swine forbidden then?
6147 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." Whoever is forced without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.
6148 AND for the Jews We have forbidden all that have claws; and from the cattle and the sheep We forbade their fat except what is attached to the back, or entrails, or mixed with bone. That is a punishment for their rebellion, and We are truthful.
The "and" at the start of 6148 implies that the additional categories of haram food for the Jews was a punisment for their rebellion, and was an addition to the 4 categories of haram food for mankind. Otherwise you think that the Jews were being punished by making the blood, dead meat, and what is dedicated to other than The God halal for them ????? and making for them haram ONLY animals with claws and fat of cattle and sheep ????? idea
You only continue to extrapolate/conjecture, Tanveer, and this is why you were compelled to open your comments with the term...implies
Main Entry IMPLY to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement to contain potentially.
Per the above definition, you, cannot, for a certainty, support your idea, hence, you are only conjecturing. As I said time and again, what Allah does say directly about Jews and what they were forbidden to eat, is clearly stated in ayat 6146..there is no implying, conjecturing or extrapolating about this...do you agree?
According to your logic, "lahma khinzeerin", whatever you translate it as, would be lawful to Jews too as it is not made haram in 6148 and that will again cause the "supposed/presumed" contradiction, and your re-translation will STILL NOT RESOLVE THE SUPPOSED/PRESUMED CONTRADICTION LOOP. idea
Tell you what, let's not guess at what "lahma khinzerin" means, but define them. Previously, I gave the definitions for lahma and khanaza...do you reject these definitions or not? If so, on what grounds? Please keep in mind that, lahma and shahama are not synonomous terms, hence, if one believes that lahma khinzerin means flesh of swine, then fat/shahama is excluded and gelatin must be halal. Also, if you accept that kahinzerin means pigs, then, you must also accept/believe that Allah, literally, turned human beings into pigs. Is this truly what you believe?
IMO as I have explained above, there is no contradiction between 6147, 6148 and 57 with the current translation of khinzeer meaning pig.
Again, you are stating only opinion and not fact. The question is then...do you know for a fact that what you are following is the truth or not? Allah, per ayat 733, makes haram the giving of opinion relative to Him
733 Say the things that my Lord hath indeed forbidden/made haram are...and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge.
Looking forward to your reply both on this thread and thread on OPINION AND LIES.
-
Peace Priest Bokmei,
I have no idea what you are talking about here, Tan. Allah, per ayat 646, specifically, mentions the Jews in regard to what food was made haram to them.
Let me tell you again what I am talking about. Let us forget about any of my understandings/opinions and limit the discussion to QUR'AANIC FACTS.
According to your logic, Allah, per ayat 6148, specifically, mentions the Jews in regard to what food was made haram to them. 6148 also does not mention blood, dead meat and "what was dedicated to other than The God" as being haram for the Jews, so then are they also halal for mankind according to 57 ?
where in Al-Quran, the Book of Law/Guidance to mankind, does Allah make swine haram for the Jews to eat?
TOUCHE ! Where in Al-Qur'aan, the Book of Law/Guidance to mankind, does Allah make blood, dead meat, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah" haram for Jews to eat ? Allah, in ayat 6148, makes it clear what He forbade the Jews to eat--until the coming of Jesus. Given that Allah makes no mention of the Jews being forbidden to eat blood, dead meat, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah", how is blood, dead meat, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah" forbidden then ? And if they are not forbidden to Jews, then how can they be forbidden to mankind per 57 ? But then that would clearly contradict 6147.
given that nowhere in Al-Quran does Allah forbid the Jews to eat swine, hence, it was lawful to them, and ayat 55 states that their food and out food are halal for each other, lahma khinzeerin, then, cannot mean the animal pig.
Given that nowhere in Al-Quran does Allah forbid the Jews to eat lahma khinzeerin, hence, it was lawful to them, and ayat 57 states that their food and our food are halal for each other, lahma khinzeerin, then, whatever it means, has to be halal for mankind. But then that would contradict 6147; how would you resolve that contradiction ?
As I said time and again, what Allah does say directly about Jews and what they were forbidden to eat, is clearly stated in ayat 6146..there is no implying, conjecturing or extrapolating about this...do you agree?
As I said time and again, given that Allah makes no mention of the Jews being forbidden to eat blood, dead meat, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah" in 6148, how is blood, dead meat, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah" forbidden then ?
6148 is clearly a continuation of 6147 because of the word "and" (no implications, just a fact). That clearly shows that what is made haram to Jews is in addition to what is made haram for all mankind in 6147 and that is the punishment for Jews for their rebellion. According to your logic, blood, dead meat, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah would be halal for Jews, as 6148 does not make them haram for Jews.
Tell you what, let's not guess at what "lahma khinzerin" means, but define them
Let us not define anything but use the exact word "lahma khinzeerin", whatever it means in English, and not CONJECTURE to its meaning as you are doing. Given that nowhere in Al-Quran does Allah forbid the Jews to eat "lahma khinzeerin", hence, it was lawful to them, and ayat 57 states that their food and our food are halal for each other, lahma khinzeerin, then, whatever it means, has to be halal for mankind. But then that would contradict 6147; how would you resolve that contradiction ?
Because of you CONJECTURING to the meaning of "lahma khinzeerin", 733 applies to you.
733 Say the things that my Lord hath indeed forbidden/made haram are...and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge.
So please refrain from committing a haram act by saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge.
I asked you a simple question at the beginning of my previous post and you have refused to answer it. Please be courteous and answer my question first before expecting me to answer your questions
6148 also does not mention blood, dead meat and "what was dedicated to other than The God" as being haram for the Jews, so then are they also halal for mankind according to 57 ?
Looking forward to your reply to the FACTS, and your answer to my question.
-
Peace all,
This argument/discussion hinges upon flawed logic that is expanded upon in bro tanveer's post, I'll just add in summary
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...this will be just another one of those attempts...
For more information on pork etc... please read this very interesting thread and the post by user David
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2074&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=150
I think it has been clearly shown by Shuaib, Sabo, Someone, and others that khanzeer cannot possibly mean ?bad meat I see? according to Arabic grammar, and I have not heard a single counter argument yet.
Even if we ignore the Arabic grammar (which I don?t), replacing ?pig? with ?bad/stinking/maggoty I see? doesn?t make any logical sense either.
6145 He has only forbidden you what dies of itself and blood and flesh of swine and that over which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked, but whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring nor exceeding the limit, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Point 1
Why ?meat I see bad??
Why does it have to be seen?
Often we can tell meat is bad from its smell, rather than its looks.
Why not ?bad meat I smell??It doesn?t say ?carrion I see? or ?blood I see?.
Why doesn?t it just say ?bad meat??
Point 2
All things in the list can be eating without physical harm. One can eat
- what has died of itself
- blood
- flesh of pig
- having someone/something else?s name mentioned upon food
without physically harming themselves. We are allowed to eat these items under necessity as a mercy from God.
Under necessity, to me, means if one doesn?t have recourse to other food sources. Personally, I would need to be starving in such a case.
What is the effect of eating rotten/bad/maggoty meat? Wouldn?t it give someone food poisoning, or make them violently ill? When someone is under starvation (or even under normal conditions), couldn?t eating rotten/bad/maggoty meat kill the person?
Is eating rotten/maggoty meat supposed to be a mercy from God??
edited to add the meat to all the pigs
-
PEACE, TANVEER, MD,
According to your logic, Allah, per ayat 6148, specifically, mentions the Jews in regard to what food was made haram to them. 6148 also does not mention blood, dead meat and "what was dedicated to other than The God" as being haram for the Jews, so then are they also halal for mankind according to 57 ?...Let us not define anything but use the exact word "lahma khinzeerin", whatever it means in English, and not CONJECTURE to its meaning as you are doing. Given that nowhere in Al-Quran does Allah forbid the Jews to eat "lahma khinzeerin", hence, it was lawful to them, and ayat 57 states that their food and our food are halal for each other, lahma khinzeerin, then, whatever it means, has to be halal for mankind. But then that would contradict 6147; how would you resolve that contradiction ?
O.k., let me try it from this angle. You will agree that Al-Quran, per ayat 2185, was sent to all of mankind for guidance; there is no other book or books for mankinds guidance. Included in mankind are the Jews. I'm certain that you also agree with that. Now, although ayat 6147 does not mention the Jews specifically, ayat 6147 does mention what is haram for mankind--the Jews included, thus, the things made haram in ayat 6147 are haram for the Jews as well. I'm certain you must agree with this also. Also keep in mind that, it would be very cumbersome to list all that is halal in Al-Quran, hence, Allah, simply names what is haram and what is not haram is halal. With this in mind then there is no contradiction between ayats 6146-7 and 148 at all.
Let's continue.
6148 AND for the Jews We have forbidden all that have claws; and from the cattle and the sheep We forbade their fat except what is attached to the back, or entrails, or mixed with bone. That is a punishment for their rebellion, and We are truthful.
53 Forbidden to you (for food) are dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah. that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows that is impiety...
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...
Lahma khinzerin does not mean the the pig is haram to eat, but that any flesh "seen as bad" is haram to eat. We must agree that, Allah, chooses His Words with care. With this in mind then, lahma/flesh and shahama/fat are totally different terms, hence, the fat of the pig and products made from its hoof, both not being flesh/lahma, are then halal to eat. Remember now, Allah, forbade the Jews to eat the shahama/fat of the sheep and oxen, except that which adhered to their bones. Allah, however, does not say shahama/fat khinzerin is haram, hence, the fat of the pig must be halal. Likewise, He does not forbid the eating of the products made from the hoofs of the pig. Do you also believe that Allah actually turned human beings into khinzerin? In your responses, you have not dealt with these arguments, please do in your next response.
What you refuse to accept is that, per ayat 6148, Allah, tells humanity EXACTLY what He made haram to the Jews regarding food and aya 53 tells us EXACTLY what Allah has made haram for ALL of mankind--the Jews included. Allah, then goes on tell us how the Jews made other things unlawful to themselves on their own.
Finally, given that lahma khinzerin cannot mean the pig and the Jews, according to ayat 6148, were not forbidden to eat pig, then for muslims to maintain that the pig is haram to eat , contradicts ayat ayat 55.
It is time now for you to either agree with the definitions for lahma and shahama or reject them. Please provide the source for your definitions.
Looking forward to your reply as always.
-
Salaamun Alaikum all in Islam,
A new thought for all to have a new look shock
6146
And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful. 6146
Please look at the word "HAADOO" is that really means "JEWS"?
If so, then what is the difference between 6146 and 551?
551
O you who believe, do not take the Jews and the Nazarenes as allies, for they are allies to one another; and whoever takes them as such from amongst you is one of them. God does not guide the wicked people. 551
I am sure Allah know how to say "Yahood".Anyway, this is a dought came into my mind, correct me if you find me wrong.
May Allah open your hearts to understand the Truth.
Regards,
MMKhan
-
Peace Priest Bokmei,
I see that you have refused yet again to answer my question and are eluding the point I am trying to make. Instead you are directing my attention to another point that I am not discussing right now. What "lahma khinzeerin" means does not make any difference to the point I am trying to make. Sister Nadia's post mentioning what David wrote has dealt with that aspect.
Please focus on the point I am trying to bring to your attention and please answer my question so that the discussion can progress. In my discussion, I am not going to translate "lahma khinzeerin" for now, but use the exact word, so there is no conjecture. Let me repeat
6148 does not mention blood, dead meat and "what was dedicated to other than The God" as being haram for the Jews, so then are they also halal for mankind according to 57 ?
Please answer this question and stop eluding this. I asked you this question first, so you should have the courtesy to reply to this question before expecting me to answer your questions.
Given that Allah makes no mention in 6148 of the Jews being forbidden to eat blood, dead meat, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah", how is blood, dead meat, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah" forbidden then ? And if they are not forbidden to Jews, then how can they be forbidden to mankind per 57 ? But then that would clearly contradict 6147.
Given that Allah, in 6148, does not forbid the Jews to eat lahma khinzeerin, hence, according to you it was lawful to them, and ayat 57 states that their food and our food are halal for each other, lahma khinzeerin, then, whatever it means, has to be halal for mankind. But then that would contradict 6147; how would you resolve that contradiction ?
Now, although ayat 6147 does not mention the Jews specifically, ayat 6147 does mention what is haram for mankind--the Jews included, thus, the things made haram in ayat 6147 are haram for the Jews as well. I'm certain you must agree with this also. Also keep in mind that, it would be very cumbersome to list all that is halal in Al-Quran, hence, Allah, simply names what is haram and what is not haram is halal. With this in mind then there is no contradiction between ayats 6146-7 and 148 at all.
Agreed. (Finally, looks like the light is dawning on you D , that is what I have been trying to tell you all along !) Your supposed/presumed contradiction is created due to your faulty understanding of 6148 and your flawed logic.
6148 is clearly a continuation of 6147 because of the word "and" (no implications, just a fact). That clearly shows that what is made haram to Jews in 6148 is IN ADDITION TO what is made haram for all mankind (including Jews) in 6147 ( as you have already agreed) and that is the punishment for Jews for their rebellion.
According to your faulty logic however, blood, dead meat, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah would be halal for Jews, as 6148 does not make them haram for Jews. But when you look at 6147 and 6148 together
6147 Say "I do not find in what is inspired to me forbidden except that it be already dead, or blood, or lahma khinzeerin, for it is foul; or what is corruptly dedicated to other than God." Whoever is forced without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.
6148 AND for the Jews We have forbidden all that have claws; and from the cattle and the sheep We forbade their fat except what is attached to the back, or entrails, or mixed with bone. That is a punishment for their rebellion, and We are truthful.the list of haram food FOR THE JEWS would be as follows
- Already dead
- Blood
- Lahma khinzeerin
- What is dedicated to other than Allah
- All that have claws
- Fat of cattle and sheep except what is attached to back, entrails, or mixed with bone.
ALL OF THE ABOVE WERE MADE HARAM FOR JEWS. 1-4 haram for mankind. 1-6 haram for Jews (5 and 6 haram only for Jews in addition to 1-4 as a punishment for their rebellion).
When you keep this in mind, 57 becomes very clear, and there is NO CONTRADICTION between 6147, 6148, and 57.
57 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;
Food of Jews (people of scripture) = everything except 1-6 mentioned above = lawful for mankind
Mankind's food = everything except 1-4 mentioned above = lawful for Jews (them) (the 5 and 6 were made lawful for them by Allah through Jesus)
Therefore NO CONTRADICTION. Q.E.D.
Lahma khinzerin does not mean the the pig is haram to eat, but that any flesh "seen as bad" is haram to eat. We must agree that, Allah, chooses His Words with care. With this in mind then, lahma/flesh and shahama/fat are totally different terms, hence, the fat of the pig and products made from its hoof, both not being flesh/lahma, are then halal to eat. Remember now, Allah, forbade the Jews to eat the shahama/fat of the sheep and oxen, except that which adhered to their bones. Allah, however, does not say shahama/fat khinzerin is haram, hence, the fat of the pig must be halal.
Agreed. That seems to be the only logical conclusion.
For my above mentioned points however, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT "LAHMA KHINZEERIN" MEANS.
Do you also believe that Allah actually turned human beings into khinzerin?
If Allah says He turned humans into "khanazeer" then of course He did (do you deny the word of Allah ?). Now what "khanazeer" means in 563, I have yet to figure out. I need to do more research and discussion before I can say what "khanazeer" means in 563 with certainty.
563 Say "Shall I inform you of worse than this as a punishment from God? Those whom God cursed and became angry at them, and He made from them apes and khanazeer and servants of evil. Those have a worst place and are more astray from the right path."
To me, "apes and khanazeer" could be an idiom, meaning bad looking or ugly people. Just like the English usage "His animal passions caused him trouble", or "he is an animal".
That is just my opinion, though, at this time, and in no way I am saying that Allah means that (just to make it clear to you, that I am not trying to invent and ascribe to Allah what He did not say). As of now, I do not know exactly what "khanazeer" means in 563, and I would appreciate if someone with deep grasp and knowledge of Arabic language and grammar can clarify that for us.
I will put the same question back to you. Do you believe that Allah actually turned human beings into apes ?
Looking forward to your reply, and the answer to my question that I have been asking you over and over without any answer from you.
6148 does not mention blood, dead meat and "what was dedicated to other than The God" as being haram for the Jews, so then are they also halal for mankind according to 57 ?
-
Peace all,
I just went through the thread Pork & Logic at the following link
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2074&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=150
The argument that it means pig meat in 6147 is based on the words being "lahma alkhinzeerin", saying that when a word has "al" at its beginning it cannot be an adjective. 6147 however does not say "lahma alkhinzeerin" but it says "lahma khinzeerin" without the "al". "Lahma khinzeerin" then could still mean "bad/dirty meat" and it can also mean "pig meat". Which meaning is the correct meaning in 6148 ?
Maybe for it to mean "bad/dirty meat" it should be "lahmoun khinzeerin" and not "lahma khinzeerin"
Can anyone with good knowledge of Arabic and its grammar comment on that please ?