Is Swine Hallal

savage_carrot

Peace Tanveer, someone...

It might be helpful to delve grammatically into that one instance where al isn't used. The concept is clear though, which is that if everywhere else it is a noun, there is some grammatical rule at work in 6145, like you mentioned, anadjective...Doesn't mean it isn't the same thing as well.

Someone

Peace upon all,

Sorry for the late response, I'm not often around a computer these times. The arabic grammar is one of the most complex and precise, explainig the rules would take much time. I hope that someone with knowledge of grammar (and time) would take this job, if not I would do my best next time unless if the god wills.

If any of you has a book of arabic grammar at hand, please do check the rule of (mouthaf wa mouthaf ilayh) and (na?t wa man?ut).

Thank you for your patience, and don't rush with the understanding. Meanwhile, one can enjoy what is good of the meat of beef, chicken and fish wink

For the food of "ahl al-kitab", try to read the verses with the understanding that "ahl al-kitab" are the people "able to write", as this kind of people would ultimately try their best to eat good food, since they have the necessary knowledge.

--

unknownuser

thor,

but guess what? ... we are in cyber space ... the great equalizer ... where one can not use intimidation or other forms of coercion to win an argument ... where the simple and straight forward way to win an argument is to counter your opponents points ... so be a man and stop whinning ... answer the questions ...

I've spoken to you with respect, but you persist in being a smart-mouthed little boy in return, hence, it is apparent that you only want to be antagonistic. So, we're done. Peace.

savage_carrot

Peace Thor,

I completely agree with your statement, thats precisely why he won't answer/counter our points. He is now running away from you as well even though you did answer his questions and requested answers in return. The excuses are just that...avoidance, you've seen the way he posts, all you did was give him his own back with some excellent points. Talk about unbelievable roll

Thor

PB

I've spoken to you with respect, but you persist in being a smart-mouthed little boy in return, hence, it is apparent that you only want to be antagonistic. So, we're done. Peace.

I would have appreciated it if you had given me answers instead of what you call respect ... personally your constant evasion of the issues was more disrespectful that anything else that transpired on this thread ...

I think its pretty clear now that you have no intention of responding to mine, or anybody else's questions ...

thats cool ... it was getting pretty old anyways ...

ciao ...

unknownuser

PEACE, SOMEONE,

Sorry for the late response, I'm not often around a computer these times. The arabic grammar is one of the most complex and precise, explainig the rules would take much time. I hope that someone with knowledge of grammar (and time) would take this job, if not I would do my best next time unless if the god wills.

If any of you has a book of arabic grammar at hand, please do check the rule of (mouthaf wa mouthaf ilayh) and (na?t wa man?ut).

Someone, with respect to you and your time constraints, it is not appropriate to make a claim and then not substantiate it nor is appropriate ask others to bear out your claim for you.

You did not, and still have not, offered an explanation for why you didn't include ayat 6145 in you presentation and why no "al" precedes khinzerin in that ayat as it does in the others. I'm certain you will agree 6145 contradicts your "arabic grammar rule". Allah, is consistent, otherwise, discrepancies occur. Your claim, creates a discrepancy.

Per ayat 2185, Allah, makes it clear that, Al-Quran was sent for the guidance of humanity {guidance the instructions on how to live a righteous life in this world (especially, not to do shirk) , so that, one may successfuly pass the test of conduct , so that, one may avoid the destiny of Hell and gain the destiny of Paradise .} With this in mind then, Al-Quran was not sent to academicians or grammaticians for their guidance, but for the unlettered individual as well. Does Allah make understanding complex Arabic rules of grammar requisite for understanding Al-Quran? Listen , I'm not dismissing the importance of grammar, but, just how grammatically complex is it for a translator to simply write ..."flesh of the swine" as opposed to "the flesh of swine", given that, he or she must understand the grammar involved? What prevents them from seeing this complex Arabic rule of grammar and translating the ayat properly?

Without further substantiation from you of the Arabic grammar rule and the answers to my other questions, your comment can only be considered conjecture/canard at this time .

For the food of "ahl al-kitab", try to read the verses with the understanding that "ahl al-kitab" are the people "able to write", as this kind of people would ultimately try their best to eat good food, since they have the necessary knowledge.

This, likewise, is purely conjectural as well as misleading. Why would anyone read the ayat in that light? Are/were all of the People of the Book able to read?

Looking forward to your reply.

unknownuser

THOR,

PB

I've spoken to you with respect, but you persist in being a smart-mouthed little boy in return, hence, it is apparent that you only want to be antagonistic. So, we're done. Peace.

I would have appreciated it if you had given me answers instead of what you call respect ... personally your constant evasion of the issues was more disrespectful that anything else that transpired on this thread ...

I think its pretty clear now that you have no intention of responding to mine, or anybody else's questions ...

thats cool ... it was getting pretty old anyways ...

ciao ...

I'm not evading you or them. Those who knows me here, know that I do not evade or back away from any issue. Just as soon as SC and/or Tanveer, commit to their positions by answering those questions with a yes or no response, then I will reply to them in a...twinkling of an eye".

Instead of posting to me constantly, why don't you request of them to simply answer those questions? With this done the discussion can once again move forward.

It is clear by now that neither of them wants to commit to a yes or no reply, because they don't have any confidence in their positions, hence, they are simply guessing/conjecturing. This is why lawyers and judges, often, will insist that a witness answer yes or no to direct questions...it leaves no doubt about the individuals position. They are afraid, no problem.

Hopefully, Someone, will provide substantiation for his claims.

unknownuser

THOR,

Regarding your question

The Jews are included in all mankind and the restrictions in do apply to them

AND

The Jews are not included in all mankind and the restrictions in do not apply to them

I can't be clearer than that.

Here's my point. The Jews, per ayat 6146, which is speaking of the Jews PRIOR to the coming of Al-Quran, were never forbidden to eat swine. The food restricted to them, due to their transgressions and not because the animal by its creation was filthy or unclean for consumption, were animal with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep. Once again, the fat, as with the animals with claws, is not unclean/filthy.

Likewise, Allah, makes not mention of mankind in general, prior to the coming of Al-Quran , of swine being haram.

Do you accept this much?

unknownuser

Peace all,

To quote from Someone's post in the thread Pork & Logic at the following link

http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=30425#30425

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 almadinati

You 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".

The case for "lahma khinzeerin" is the same as example 1 from the above post (underlined and bolded). Considering "lahma khinzeerin" in 6145, please note that "lahma" and "khinzeerin" do not have the same ending, so "khinzeerin" cannot be an adjective for "lahma" and has to be a noun. For it to be an adjective it has to be either allahma alkhinzeerin or lahmoun khinzeeroun.

Please also note something very interesting. Out of all occurrences of "lahm khinzeer" in 2173, 53, 6145, 16116, only in 6145, "khinzeerin" is without "al", and only in 6145 "lahma khinzeerin" is followed by the adjective "rijsun", which makes it further clear that "khinzeerin" cannot be the adjective of "lahma", as then there would be 2 adjectives in a row meaning the same for the same noun, which would be redundant.

So, in 6145, "lahma" and "khinzeerin" do not have the same ending "oun" and also they are followed by an adjective "rijsun", further reinforcing that "khinzeerin" is a noun in that instance.

That, folks, is the final nail in the coffin !

unknownuser

Peace PRIEST_BOKMEI and others,

Here's my point. The Jews, per ayat 6146, which is speaking of the Jews PRIOR to the coming of Al-Quran, were never forbidden to eat swine. The food restricted to them, due to their transgressions and not because the animal by its creation was filthy or unclean for consumption, were animal with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep. Once again, the fat, as with the animals with claws, is not unclean/filthy.

Likewise, Allah, makes not mention of mankind in general, prior to the coming of Al-Quran , of swine being haram.

Yes, as per my understanding, I am in support of the above thus far.

Now, after reading and contemplating few times over, here's what I have personally understood as per PB's notions (remember, this is just my understanding and nothing certain yet)

Firstly, isn?t the word ?rijsun? separated by a comma, emphasizing not only on the ?pig?s? meat but as well as on other restrictions in general, as to mean ?morally detestable? or abomination as a whole. Lets analyze the verses below by putting the words khanzeer (meaning ill-seeming) and rijsun (meaning abomination) in perspective, shall we

Free-minds translation taken from http//www.submission.org/quran/webqt.php

He Has only forbidden for you what is already dead, and the blood, and the ill-seeming meat, 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.

Forbidden to you is that which is already dead, and the blood, and the ill-seeming meat, and what was sacrificed to other than God, and that which has been strangled, and that which has been beaten to death, and that which has fallen from a height, and that which has been gored, and that which the wild animals have eaten from except what you managed to rescue, and what has been slaughtered on alters, and that you divide by the arrows of chance. This is all vile. Today the rejecters have given up from your system, so do not fear them, but fear Me. Today I have perfected your system for you, and completed My blessings upon you, and I have accepted surrender as the system for you. So, whoever is forced by severe hunger and not seeking sin, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.

Say "I do not find in what is inspired to me forbidden except that it be already dead, or blood, or the ill-seeming meat, for it is an abomination or what is corruptly dedicated to other than God." Whoever is forced without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.

He only made forbidden for you what is already dead, and blood, and the ill-seeming meat, and what was sacrificed to any other than God. But whoever is forced to without disobedience or transgression, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.

Notice that no animal is singled out and the verses are talking about all animals/meats in general. Besides, pig is not the only filthy animal singling out as taught for whatever reasons. Please browse the following links with sub-links (and many more by google search)

http//www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=filthy+animals

http//www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=animals+eating+faeces&btnG=Search

http//www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=animals+eating+manure&btnG=Search

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 them apes and ill-seeming and servants of evil. Those have a worst place and are more astray from the right path."

This verse talks about people?s behaviour such as of apes (jumpy, childish, clumsy, excited, etc.), the ill-seeming (sick, filthy, mental, funky, irregular, etc.) and the servants of evil (obnoxious, dangerous, wicked, harmful, offensive, unwilling/uncompromising, etc.).

What do you think folks?

unknownuser

Peace all,

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT PORK IS INTRINSICALLY BAD (RIJSUN)

It is well known that pork consumption can cause many kinds of infections. However, there is scientific evidence that even UNINFECTED pig meat can cause various diseases, showing that pig meat is intrinsically bad (bad by nature). Amazing scientific verification of Allah's words, calling pig meat "rijsun".

Following is summary of scientific evidence that pig meat is bad by nature

(A) Pork and Liver Cirrhosis

Cirrhosis mortality (death rate due to liver cirrhosis) correlates significantly with pork consumption but not with ethanol intake.
Pork facilitates the occurrence of cirrhosis in individuals who drink alcohol.

(B) Pork and Liver Cancer

Both alcohol and pork are associated with the risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma.

(C) Pork and Multiple Sclerosis

The peculiar geographical distribution of multiple sclerosis (MS) has long been a puzzle to researchers. One of the risk factors for MS is dietary fat. Since beef and pork are major sources of animal fat, the relationship between MS and the consumption of beef and pork was investigated.

The per capita consumption of beef and pork was correlated with prevalence rates for MS. For the purposes of the study, only those countries where case ascertainment was complete were included.

The study showed that pork consumption correlates with both prevalence of MS and latitude and that might explain why MS is common in temperate countries (e.g. Western Europe) and rare in countries where pork is forbidden by religious customs (e.g. Middle East).

The strength of the correlation between pork consumption and MS prevalence is impressive enough to suggest that pork increases the risk of developing MS.

(D) Pork and Vascular Disease

Studies indicate a higher proportion of cerebrovascular disease in countries with a higher pork consumption suggesting that pork somehow contributes to the development of cerebrovascular disease.

(E) Does Pork Consumption Lead to Alcoholism?

Given the several studies cited above, the obvious question is Does pork consumption lead to alcohol consumption. To test this hypothesis, figures for both alcohol and pork consumption were correlated in 36 countries. A significant correlation was obtained. To study whether this relationship held true within a country, the same correlation was studied in the 10 provinces of Canada. The study showed a significant correlation between pork consumption and the number of alcoholics in each province.

REFERENCES

A.A. NANJI and S.W. FRENCH, "Lancet" 1, 681 (1985).
T. SORENSEN et al, "Lancet" 2, 241 (1984).
Food and Agricultural Organization. "Production year book 1975-1983". 4. B. AMSTRONG and R. DOLL, "Int. J. Cancer", 15, 617 (1975).
G.E. GRAY et al, "Br. J. Cancer" 39, 1 (1979).
R. SMITH, "Br. Med. J" 283, 895 (1981).
A.A. NANJI and S.K FRENCH, "Cancer" 56, 2711 (1985).
J.F. KURTZKE, "Acta Neurol Scand" 51, 110 (1975).
M.C. GRAVES, "Ann Intern Med." 101, 514 (1984).
A.A. NANJ1, "Int. J. Cardiol" 8, 487 (1985).
Z. PISA and K. UEMURA, "World Health Stat" 35, 11 (1982).
A.S. ST-LEGER et al, "Lancet" 1, 1017 (1979).
A.A. NANJ1 and S.W. FRENCH, "Atherosclerosis" 60 197, 1986

PORK LINKED TO LIVER CIRRHOSIS

from Canadian Science News, January 1986

By

Carolyn Hoskins

FOR the first time, researchers have shown a possible link between cirrhosis of the liver and dietary factors other than alcohol. The recent findings of an Ottawa research team show that people who drink, even in moderation, and consume pork are more likely to suffer the potentially fatal liver disease than are people who consume other meat or fatty diets.

Dr Amin A. Nanji, Head of Clinical Biochemistry at the Ottawa General Hospital, and Samuel W French, Chairman of the Department of Pathology at the University of Ottawa, investigated the relationship between ?per capita? consumption of total fat, beef, and pork in several countries and the mortality rates for cirrhosis of the liver in these same countries. They focused their studies on countries where alcohol consumption was relatively low, such as Canada, the U.S., West Germany and Australia. Dr Nanji says previous reports had shown a high rate of deaths from cirrhosis in countries where alcohol consumption was very high, but a ?curious scatter? of deaths in countries where alcohol consumption was low.

In other words, countries with low levels of alcohol consumption showed a great variation in the incidence of cirrhosis deaths. Dr Nanji concluded that some other factor besides alcohol must be at work. Cirrhosis of the liver is a leading cause of death in North America. In the early stages of this degenerative disease, the liver becomes inflated by fat, a condition called ?alcoholic fatty liver?. This condition can be reversed.

In the later stages of cirrhosis, normal liver tissue is gradually replaced by fibrous tissue, the liver structure becomes misshapen and disorganized, and the liver cannot recover. Eventually the victim dies from liver failure. When the Ottawa team examined the diets of the countries in their study, they found no relationship between deaths from cirrhosis and dietary fat or beef consumption. However, they did find a striking correlation between pork consumption and cirrhosis mortality for the same countries. When they examined the relationship in terms of pork consumption multiplied by alcohol consumption, the results were overwhelming.

The two scientists also compared similar data from Canada?s ten provinces. Again cirrhosis mortality was significantly associated with pork, but not with alcohol consumption - presumably because Canadians as a group are not heavy drinkers. When the researchers left Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, where more seafood is eaten, there was an even stronger link between the fatal liver disease and pork consumption.

Even more convincing to the researchers were comparisons of pork consumption and its effect on cirrhosis death rates within a population. Among the Canadian provinces where alcohol consumption varies little between provinces (from 9.23 litres per person a year in New Brunswick to 13.05 in Alberta) the death rates from cirrhosis were directly related to ?per capita? pork consumption, but not to alcohol intake.

For example, although Albertans drink slightly more than people in British Columbia, they suffer far less from cirrhosis deaths than do people in B.C.,who have a higher pork intake. Dr Nanji says the researchers don?t know how pork might cause or enhance cirrhosis of the liver. Nor should their study be taken to mean that alcohol does not cause liver disease, he says. But other researchers have speculated that some ?facilitating factor? might explain why only some alcoholics get cirrhosis. The Ottawa team may have found part of the answer Dr Nanji says. Drs. Nanji and French hope to follow their statistical study with a ?case control study? in which they will investigate meat consumption of individual alcoholic and cirrhotic patients.

Elena

Peace Tanveermd,

I know that animals consumption is unhealthy, but you have not provided any figure, some % in your summary and haven't you find more recent studies?

savage_carrot

Peace Danish, all

Yes, as per my understanding, I am in support of the above thus far.

I'm not as noted in my previous posts even though I don't consider this to be the main point at all. The main point would be the definition of khanzeerin. As Tanveer put it, please check his post with the divisions into parts, the section

FORBIDDEN FOOD FOR MANKIND

Firstly, isn?t the word ?rijsun? separated by a comma, emphasizing not only on the ?pig?s? meat but as well as on other restrictions in general, as to mean ?morally detestable? or abomination as a whole.

I would like to be clear on how rijsun is being used as morally detestable, when there is another word used for that which is fisqun 'corrupt' and by going through the verses where this root occurs as perverse/rebellious/impious/wicked. This would be immoral or 'morally detestable', and it's already used for all restrictions.

The root of rijsun as has been posted here is

Ra-Jiim-Siin = state of commotion, confuse greatly, make a noise/sound, hinder/prevent, unclean/dirty/filthy, evil, something which is unlawful/forbidden, unbelief/infidelity/doubt.

Thus all restrictions are called fisqun, khanzeerin is called additionally as rijsun. If we say pig meat is being singled out as created bad, then is blood also created bad? These are parts of animals that are restricted all the time (except if forced etc) not just entering into a particular state. If dead meat, blood and lahma khinzeerin are all called additionally as rijsun, then you have one out of them entering into a state thats restricted while the other two are always restricted unless forced etc. Thus one is bad/filthy/unclean in a certain state and the rest are always bad/filthy/unclean but all restrictions are lawful to us in times of necessity etc. What about the other 8 restrictions called fisqun but not rijsun? Is there something in particular about these three restrictions then? Or is it just pig meat? Thats an interesting question and one that may be answered by research etc as the quran only tells us that it is restricted and calls it rijsun.

Secondly, how is the definition of khinzeerin as ill seeming being applied? The definition as it stands is 'I see bad', lahma khinzeerin is being defined then as meat i see bad...something that you see is bad or ill seeming if you want, but it has to look bad as thats one of the definitions of the 'compound word'. Many times meat can look bad but still be good. Anyone who has frozen meat can testify to this, I recently had an argument over it and had to check health resources for how to gauge whether meat is bad by it's looks or not. The meat I had frozen had dark brown patches over it, it looked really bad. But in reality it was perfectly fine, even though it looked bad. I think it's called freezer burn or something. The site I checked told about how meat can look bad but be perfectly healthy to eat, and meat is not gauged by looks. Most times meat thats bad is gauged by smell. So how is meat i see bad being applied as actually bad meat? Or are we restricted to eat 'meat i see bad' even though it's perfectly fine to eat?

This verse talks about people?s behaviour such as of apes (jumpy, childish, clumsy, excited, etc.), the ill-seeming (sick, filthy, mental, funky, irregular, etc.) and the servants of evil (obnoxious, dangerous, wicked, harmful, offensive, unwilling/uncompromising, etc.).

As I said before, literal words can be the same and the context will determine how to apply it. This is also because the words used apes and pigs will convey the meaning to us, if taken metaphorically, far better than choosing one meaning of a figurative word called as actually being used. Like take the above example you gave, and try choosing one meaning of them, as the word can only mean what it's meanings are...not ALL of the meanings but one depending on the context. So you have,

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 them apes(clumsy/jumpy/funky? which one?) and ill-seeming (I see bad/filthy/mental? which one?) and servants of evil(self explanatory). Those have a worst place and are more astray from the right path."

OR

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 them apes and pigs and servants of evil. Those have a worst place and are more astray from the right path."

Now in the latter, the literal words being used are giving to us the idea of what God turned them into, if taken metaphorically, you can read it as these people became animals like apes and pigs (their assorted behaviours) and servants of evil. This is ensuring integrity and consistency throughout. It's clear which is the better translation, as it also doesn't create problems elsewhere.

unknownuser

PEACE, DANISH,

PBM Here's my point. The Jews, per ayat 6146, which is speaking of the Jews PRIOR to the coming of Al-Quran, were never forbidden to eat swine. The food restricted to them, due to their transgressions and not because the animal by its creation was filthy or unclean for consumption, were animal with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep. Once again, the fat, as with the animals with claws, is not unclean/filthy.