Is Swine Hallal
-
Peace Tanveer,
Don't waste your time with PB. We asked him to respond to our posts repeatedly in the past, he did not comply...Yet we answered his questions in good faith consistently. There is no reason why we should humour his 'commands', when he doesn't care a whit about our requests. Let's discuss the points as they stand in the posts...I basically care about responding to points rather than 'talking' to him, when you do that, you are only stating the OBVIOUS anyway, time and time again.
He keeps talking about burden of proof when he doesn't realise that there are three kinds...the other two in case it escaped his knowledge
2)A evidentiary burden is an obligation that shifts between parties over the course of the hearing or trial. A party may submit evidence that the court will consider prima facie proof of some state of affairs. This creates a evidentiary burden upon the opposing party to present evidence to refute the presumption
3)A tactical burden is an obligation similar to an evidentiary burden. Presented with certain evidence, the Court has the discretion to infer a fact from it unless the opposing party can present evidence to the contrary.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
Adequate evidence can, however, shift the burden of proof to the other party.
This is why in any debate/argument between two opposing sides, you'd ideally want a fair/impartial mediator, who would see through unfair and dirty tactics.
-
Peace someone,
Thank you for posting the grammatical info. It's quite helpful in eliminating options of what it can't be.
-
PB,
I'll take a shot at your true/false quiz. Some questions are specifically addressed to SC, but I'll answer as best as I can with my own opinions
53 Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked, and the strangled (animal) and that beaten to death, and that killed by a fall and that killed by being smitten with the horn, and that which wild beasts have eaten, except what you slaughter, and what is sacrificed on stones set up (for idols) and that you divide by the arrows; that is a transgression.
- The animals restricted to eat in the above ayat, are they, by their created natures, haram to eat. Yes or no?
No. Stupid question. Its obvious that the opposing position is that the flesh of swine is haram by nature, while the other restriction refer to any animal in those conditions. When you already know this, why the moronic insistence on a Yes or No answer? That?s like asking if the US flag is Blue or Red.
- They are only haram to eat when they enter into a particualr state/condition. Am I correct?
Another stupid question. See the explanation above. What is the point of this?
The pig, being a quarduped, and Allah made all quadrupeds halal to eat, to accept your position then, is to say that the lahma of the quadruped pig, by its very created nature, is haram.
- Is this your position then that, the very created nature of the pigs flesh is unclean?
Can't speak for SC. Personally Yes. Per
If this is true, then, the flesh of the must have pig has always been, by its created nature unclean, and, if this is the case, why did Allah not make it HARAM for the Jews and ALL of those before them?
Was the pig or any part of it, before the revealing of Al-Quran, haram to eat?
Ok. Here is where I am confused. Are you schizophrenic or just plain hypocritical? Did you read my post? You know the one in which I quoted your post ? in which you stated that 6145 applies to all humanity including Jews?
The answer is Yes. Per
- The only things forbidden to them, and only because of their transgressions and not because the animal was by nature unclean, are quadrupeds with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep.
Am I correct, yes or no.
No.
Explain to me where your Only came from. And please review my comment above regarding hypocricy and schizophrenia.
51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...
- Does the above ayat, mention anything about any part of a quadruped not being allowed? Yes or no?
No.
- The ayat says...quadrupeds and not quadruped. Am I correct?
Yes
- As you said, and I just want to be certain of your position here, no quadruped, as an entirety, is haram for consumption? Is this your position?
Can't speak for SC. Personally Yes.
A. 51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...
B. SC Quadrupeds are lawful except that which is recited to you. Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions. The restrictions specify what is in particular prohibited.
Ayat 51 says nothing about "except" meaning restrictions on quadrupeds. Am I correct?
No. What part of "The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except ..." didn't you understand?.
- You wrote "Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions".
Does ayat 51 say what is in the bold and italics?
No. Hey this kinda reminds me of your mysterious "only" from
- You said "No, we know what ayat 51 means". If this is true, what are the disallowed quadrupeds? Do you know?
Yes. Refer to and
- Allah, in ayat 560, makes no mention that khinzeerin, is being used as a similitude/figuratively. Am I correct?
Yes.
- Your claiming that khinzeerin in ayat 560 is figurative, is simply your opinion. Am I correct?
Can't speak for SC. Personally I think 560 is literal.
- Khanaza, has two distinct meanings pig and something which looks bad. Am I correct?
Yes. Assuming the one dictionary you quoted is accurate. But to borrow a phrase ... it's "simply your opinion" that the adjective is applicable ... actually given the usage of "Al" eliminates the possibility of it being an adjective ... I guess you can contest the one instance where it doesn't use "Al".
- Do you know for a certainty that, swine, in ayat 53, can only mean pig flesh literally?
Yes. I am no more, and no less certain about my "simple opinion" as you are about your "simple opinion". Stupid question. Don?t try holding people to a standard that you can?t maintain for yourself ... this time just review hypocricy.
- Did Allah make any quadruped, by its created nature unclean, hence, haram to eat?
Moronic question considering the one that follows.
- Did Allah make any PART of a quadruped, by its created nature, unclean, hence, haram to eat? Yes or no.
Yes. Refer to {5003] and
- When Allah made an entire category of animals haram and parts of others haram, was it because the animals by nature were unclean/unfit for human consumption or was it done to punish a people? Is this correct?
WTFO!!! I?d be fascinated if you would show me how to answer this one with a Yes or No
-
THOR,
Thank you for the reply. Now, I hope Tanveer and SC, will reply as well. Perhaps your response will encourage them. We'll see.
Btw, no need for the comments like these
Are you schizophrenic or just plain hypocritical?
Stupid question...
Moronic question?
This is a debate and I know people can get "edgy", however, there is no need for these types of comments. Fair enough? Good deal.
PB,
I'll take a shot at your true/false quiz. Some questions are specifically addressed to SC, but I'll answer as best as I can with my own opinions
53 Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked, and the strangled (animal) and that beaten to death, and that killed by a fall and that killed by being smitten with the horn, and that which wild beasts have eaten, except what you slaughter, and what is sacrificed on stones set up (for idols) and that you divide by the arrows; that is a transgression.
- The animals restricted to eat in the above ayat, are they, by their created natures, haram to eat. Yes or no?
No. Stupid question. Its obvious that the opposing position is that the flesh of swine is haram by nature, while the other restriction refer to any animal in those conditions. When you already know this, why the moronic insistence on a Yes or No answer? That?s like asking if the US flag is Blue or Red.
- They are only haram to eat when they enter into a particualr state/condition. Am I correct?
Another stupid question. See the explanation above. What is the point of this?
The pig, being a quarduped, and Allah made all quadrupeds halal to eat, to accept your position then, is to say that the lahma of the quadruped pig, by its very created nature, is haram.
- Is this your position then that, the very created nature of the pigs flesh is unclean?
Can't speak for SC. Personally Yes. Per
If this is true, then, the flesh of the must have pig has always been, by its created nature unclean, and, if this is the case, why did Allah not make it HARAM for the Jews and ALL of those before them?
Was the pig or any part of it, before the revealing of Al-Quran, haram to eat?
Ok. Here is where I am confused. Are you schizophrenic or just plain hypocritical? Did you read my post? You know the one in which I quoted your post ? in which you stated that 6145 applies to all humanity including Jews?
The answer is Yes. Per
- The only things forbidden to them, and only because of their transgressions and not because the animal was by nature unclean, are quadrupeds with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep.
Am I correct, yes or no.
No.
Explain to me where your Only came from. And please review my comment above regarding hypocricy and schizophrenia.
51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...
- Does the above ayat, mention anything about any part of a quadruped not being allowed? Yes or no?
No.
- The ayat says...quadrupeds and not quadruped. Am I correct?
Yes
- As you said, and I just want to be certain of your position here, no quadruped, as an entirety, is haram for consumption? Is this your position?
Can't speak for SC. Personally Yes.
A. 51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...
B. SC Quadrupeds are lawful except that which is recited to you. Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions. The restrictions specify what is in particular prohibited.
Ayat 51 says nothing about "except" meaning restrictions on quadrupeds. Am I correct?
No. What part of "The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except ..." didn't you understand?.
- You wrote "Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions".
Does ayat 51 say what is in the bold and italics?
No. Hey this kinda reminds me of your mysterious "only" from
- You said "No, we know what ayat 51 means". If this is true, what are the disallowed quadrupeds? Do you know?
Yes. Refer to and
- Allah, in ayat 560, makes no mention that khinzeerin, is being used as a similitude/figuratively. Am I correct?
Yes.
- Your claiming that khinzeerin in ayat 560 is figurative, is simply your opinion. Am I correct?
Can't speak for SC. Personally I think 560 is literal.
- Khanaza, has two distinct meanings pig and something which looks bad. Am I correct?
Yes. Assuming the one dictionary you quoted is accurate. But to borrow a phrase ... it's "simply your opinion" that the adjective is applicable ... actually given the usage of "Al" eliminates the possibility of it being an adjective ... I guess you can contest the one instance where it doesn't use "Al".
- Do you know for a certainty that, swine, in ayat 53, can only mean pig flesh literally?
Yes. I am no more, and no less certain about my "simple opinion" as you are about your "simple opinion". Stupid question. Don?t try holding people to a standard that you can?t maintain for yourself ... this time just review hypocricy.
- Did Allah make any quadruped, by its created nature unclean, hence, haram to eat?
Moronic question considering the one that follows.
- Did Allah make any PART of a quadruped, by its created nature, unclean, hence, haram to eat? Yes or no.
Yes. Refer to {5003] and
- When Allah made an entire category of animals haram and parts of others haram, was it because the animals by nature were unclean/unfit for human consumption or was it done to punish a people? Is this correct?
WTFO!!! I?d be fascinated if you would show me how to answer this one with a Yes or No
-
PB,
edgy? ... damn ... I was shooting for witty and blithe ...
regarding my comments ... i think they are very pertinent ... its called Calling a Spade a Spade ...
you must admit your flip-flopping on the logical argument of whether Jews are included in or not is ... worrisome ... if hypocricy or schizophrenia don't explain this ... what is the reason behind your change of stance? .... how does the mysterious "only" flit in and out of your arguments like a masked crusader? ...
And about the stupid questions ... if ever I ask you "Is the US flag Blue or Red?" ... please ... I beseech you ... tell me I'm being a moron ... I won't take it personally ... honest ...
So ... here we are again ... someone has actually taken the time to address your issues ...
here's a thought ... why don't you try it now? ... I hear thats what they do in a debate ...
but where to start? ... you've got pages of unanswered stuff from Tanveer and SC ....
if I may be so bold ... start with the logical argument on Jews ... I'm particularly fond of that ...
Eagerly awaiting your reply.
Best Regards,
Thor
-
Peace Thor,
you must admit your flip-flopping on the logical argument of whether Jews are included in or not is ... worrisome ... if hypocricy or schizophrenia don't explain this ... what is the reason behind your change of stance? .... how does the mysterious "only" flit in and out of your arguments like a masked crusader? ...
I wonder about this too...
And about the stupid questions ... if ever I ask you "Is the US flag Blue or Red?" ... please ... I beseech you ... tell me I'm being a moron ... I won't take it personally ... honest ...
lol The 15 questions are based on the same principle as cheating on an exam by making up your own questions...beats having to answer honest questions...
-
THOR,
To persist in referring to me as you do is offensive and cowardly. Would you, if we were face to face, persist in addressing me in fashion that I asked you not to? Would you really do that? If not, then, don't it from behind the fence of cyber-space, it's cowardly. Be a man and stop, cool?
Anyway, what, exactly, have I flipped-flopped on? Please post it and make your case.
if I may be so bold ... start with the logical argument on Jews ... I'm particularly fond of that ...
What didn't you grasp?
I'm still waiting for Tanveer and SC, to go on record with their positions. Yes or no answers...leaves no doubt as to where one stands. They are afraid to go on record, because they lack certainty in what they claim they know, hence, they are really following opinion*, and this is why they will not answer those questions. How long do you think it will take them to answer those questions...two to three minutes? When they answer I will answer their questions post haste. As I said, the burden of proof is on them not me.
I'm also waiting for Someone, to answer my reply to him. He makes an interesting point, however, there are questions which need to be resolved, for example, why he didn't include ayat 6145 in the ayats he presented. There is no "al" preceding khinzerin ayat 6145...why?...what happened to the Arabic rule of grammar, why is it suspended in this ayat?
Looking forward to your reply.
- http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4013
-
To persist in referring to me as you do is offensive and cowardly. Would you, if we were face to face, persist in addressing me in fashion that I asked you not to? Would you really do that? If not, then, don't it from behind the fence of cyber-space, it's cowardly. Be a man and stop, cool?
PB .. for all I know ... u are a sumo wrestler ... if such were the case and we were in an argument .. and you told me to stop picking on you ... I would certainly consider the possibilty that you might beat me into a pulp if I didn't ...
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 ...
Anyway, what, exactly, have I flipped-flopped on? Please post it and make your case.
Quote
if I may be so bold ... start with the logical argument on Jews ... I'm particularly fond of that ...What didn't you grasp?
I don't grasp how you flip flop between
- 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.
Yes or no answers...leaves no doubt as to where one stands.
except when it is impossible to answer with a Yes or No ... haven't we already gone over this?
When they answer I will answer their questions post haste.
Hey ... since I did answer the questions ... can I get a response next time? ... cool?
-
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.
-
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.
--
-
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.
-
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
-
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 ...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 almadinatiYou will notice that only "madinati" has an al, and not "babou". Thus "madinati" cannot be an adjective of babou, because
1- babou and madinati don't have the same finishing.
2- bab has no al, and madinat has an al.
So we know from the gramatical construction of the sentence that "madinat" is not an adjective for "bab".The case we have for "lahmou alkhinziri" is the same as example 2. So "khinziri" cannot be an adjective for "lahmou".
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 !
-
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?
-
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.
-