Is Swine Hallal
-
LOL Rant, rave, bluff, then duck, cut and run. This your m.o.; you're finished, Savage. I let you get away with not answering those 15 questions, but not this time. Your refusal to answer just establishes that you cannot defend your assertion and, rather than simply admit that, you prefer to change the subject, bluff, stall, deflect, sashay around, duck, run, rant, rave, etc. etc. etc. You can't learn anything behaving like that. Get honest and answer post haste.
Same guy who has the audacity to say that he asked other people to calm down roll My answers have been what they've always been...have the courtesy and integrity to answer other people's points first before expecting answers perpetually, but that's not on the cards for this user.
-
Peace Tanveer,
When you are discussing scientific facts, I would like to request you and urge you not to use scientifically inaccurate statements and mislead others. That can mean that either you do not have the accurate knowledge, or you are careless, or you are purposely/knowingly making those kind of statements.
No need to babble and get excited. Get to the point of discussion.
Just to give our friend Tanveer and others some statistics, Cirrhosis is a disease of the liver caused mainly by alcohol consumption, hepatitis, exposure to toxins/drugs and other inherited viral metabolic dysfunctions
Also the word "statistics" is wrongly used in your statement quoted above. I do not see any "statistics" in your entire post, let alone that statement.
See below.
Also a disease can be mainly caused by some things does not mean other things cannot cause it. For example blocked bile ducts can also cause cirrhosis (biliary cirrhosis).
That is not the issue. Cirrhosis of the liver caused by pig?s meat as quoted by you earlier is what I am discussing, which, btw, is not true and a wrong statement. Cirrhosis, a disease, is generally an invasion of microorganisms which cause it and not by meat itself. Any meat can be infected by such microorganisms which can cause Cirrhosis, hence not specific to pig?s meat, understand. You must be clear about this and not dodge the issues to make it look bad on pig?s meat only, hence supporting your wishful claims.
and has nothing to do with specifically pig?s meat.
In my last post, I showed you the conclusions of scientific studies that prove that there is a significant (meaning statistically significant) causal correlation between cirrhosis mortality and pork consumption. I gave a list of references at the end, from scientific journals. Please take a course in statistics to understand what statistical significance means, and please read up the referenced articles in those scientific journals, before making a careless and inaccurate statement.
What conclusions, what proofs, which studies and which journals? LOL, show some decency and courtesy to provide some readily available web-links which are scientific studies/journals (like the links I provided) to support your claims, rather than pasting some peculiar named references and babbling about them. What a conclusion???
The word ?statistics? is also wrongly used in your own statement above. I do not see any statistics either in your entire post and has nothing to do with my quoted statement. Taking a course of statistics and its significance, reflects back at you. Be careful next time when pointing fingers.
Any animal (including humans) can be infected by Cirrhosis.
I never said anything about infections in my post. Infections can cause cirrhosis but it is scientifically and medically completely inaccurate to say "infected by cirrhosis". One can be infected with an organism that can cause cirrhosis but one cannot be infected BY CIRRHOSIS. That is hilarious.
What is hilarious is who said you did? Infected by Cirrhosis was simply meant to mean invasion of organism (infection) to cause Cirrhosis. Anyhow, I stand corrected.
Liver cancers, Sclerosis and vascular diseases has nothing to do with pig?s meat specifically either.
The studies I quoted clearly prove otherwise. If you can reject the conclusion of scientific studies just like that without offering any scientific study of your own, or without quoting a scientific study that proves otherwise, then I can easily see from that how you can mistranslate the word of The God according to your own whims, without any regard to the grammatical rules and the context.
The studies you quoted are just pasted information, neither proved nor concluded. Like I mentioned earlier, have the decency and courtesy to provide scientific link(s) to further investigate on what you pasted. Here are some relevant links providing scientific information on various cancers and diseases
Liver Cancer
http//www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/liver/page2
http//www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/liver/page4Sclerosis
http//www.nationalmssociety.org/Brochures-Research.asp
http//www.msaa.com/
http//www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/multiple_sclerosis/multiple_sclerosis.htm#What_research_is_being_doneVascular diseases
http//www.sirweb.org/patPub/vascularOverview.shtml#prevent
http//www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4692Let me know if these valuable informational web-links has anything to do with specifically pig?s meat, let alone your rants about scientific studies and journals.
Majority of the Western countries and many Eastern as well, who consume pig?s meat (pork, ham, bacon, ribs, etc.) from childhood up, yet never heard nor any scientific proofs of children/adults getting sick or dying because of eating pig?s meat.
That again shows your ignorance. Look up the referenced articles in the scientific journals that I quoted from. You will find the actual data, including the number of people who died due to cirrhosis (cirrhosis mortality), which was scientifically correlated to eating pork (was statistically significant). If people have not heard of the scientific proof, does not mean that there is no scientific proof.
I hope you are not a blind follower of just plain theories and unproven scientific studies. Can?t you tell what surrounds you and what natural information you can collect, or do you solely rely on written papers by any Tom, Dick and Harry. Have you done any research yourself? Perhaps what you call proofs, are not proofs at all and neither concluded, but mere theories/assertions it at all, nothing else.
As a matter of fact, people have gotten seriously ill and/or died due to eating any infectious meat (the well-known case of cow?s meat in England is a good example). Anything that is edible (animals, fruits, vegetables, dough, dry-fruits, etc.), can be infectious by whatever cause, or eaten because of our own irresponsibilities and misjudgments, is a different matter and becomes a frivolous case to blame it specifically on pigs.
Once again, I repeat, that I never said anything about infections in my post. Any meat can be infected but that does not mean it is bad by nature. I showed you conclusions of scientific studies that show a scientific causal correlation between some diseases and pork consumption, showing that pork is intrinsically bad for the human body. That has nothing to do with any infection.
And once again, I never said that you did? Unless treated, any infectious/contaminated meat is plainly BAD, comprende. Please stop parroting about showing me conclusions and proofs of scientific studies because they simply aren?t, and read above what I had to say in that regard.
Most dangerous snakes, crustaceans and other animals that carry within them poisonous substances that can kill a human instantly, yet people hunt, cook and eat them with pleasure.
So then they are not bad by nature, but pig meat is, for scientific studies have shown that pork consumption can kill people by cirrhosis and liver cancer.
Pig meat is NOT bad by nature/creation. Gee man, YOUR sort of unconcluded and unproven scientific studies on pig?s meat will kill more people regardless of cancers and diseases.
On one occasion when some of my friends got together, a 45 year old vegetarian friend of mine had his first bite on a chicken. Finding the chicken meat delicious, he ate more. We found out that he was the only one who had gotten sick the next day for a couple more days.
What you are presenting is anecdotal data and NOT scientific data. It is well known in the medical field that a group of people can eat bad meat or infected meat and not all will have symptoms of food poisoning or infection and get sick. Even if one gets sick, the symptoms or sickness could be mild or severe. It all depends on how strong one's immune system is, and the dose/quantity of infectious or bad meat ingested. Also only a portion of the chicken meat could be bad or infected, and whoever eats that part may get sick and others who ate from the same chicken piece will not get sick.
Anecdotal data??? What I presented was a natural and factual occurring incident, not a scientific theory. Besides, I gave only one example among many others which I and others have personally experienced on various scenarios. I noticed that you didn?t get my point across, since my friend?s story had nothing to do with good or bad meat, yet you ranted.
The same sort of scenario is true for the first timers who drink alcoholic beverages, smoke cigarettes and so forth, but eventually get used to it, not because that these are any good.
They might eventually get used to it but it will still kill some of them or cause various diseases. Getting used to something bad does not mean one will not get sick from it.
I?m sure everyone here knows that smoking and alcoholic beverage consumption are injurious to health, but again, you didn?t get my point across.
Also according to context, "lahma khinzeerin" is followed by "rijsun" which clearly is an adjective for "lahma khinzeerin". If in this phrase "khinzeerin" is an adjective of "lahma", then having another adjective "rijsun" immediately following it, and meaning the same is redundant.
It is just like saying
My black cat is black. OR
My black cat is dark coloured.Does not make sense.
It certainly makes sense. The dark is defining/emphasizing the black color of cat, just like rijsun and khinzeerin. I can understand why it doesn?t make sense to you.
In 560 "khanazeer" is either literal or metaphorical. I have not made up my mind about that yet.
The God does have the power to transform a human into a literal pig, just like He transformed a stick into a snake. On the other hand, the figurative meaning fits as well. I will need to do more research on that.
That is just pure speculation and baloney. But yeah, go ahead and research all you want on how a human can be transformed into pig and a stick into snake, but please don?t present some baseless scientific unproven and inconclusive analogies or some magical loop-de-loop coming from wonderland into play. Good luck and happy hunting though. lol
-
Folks ?
It?s good to see things are exactly where I left them ?
I made a point in my first post to break this whole discussion into a logical and definitional argument ?
Once again ? lets try to put the logical argument to rest shall we? ?
Logical argument? ? Guess what? ? there isn?t one!!!
It?s a fantasy that PB likes to extol on the basis of the mysterious ONLY ?
For those of you not acquainted with the mysterious ONLY allow me to introduce you ?.
This ONLY is PB?s personal superhero ? his caped crusader ? that sweeps into and out of ayat 6146 when it suits him ?
It allows him to launch into
why did Allah knowing that the pig is fasiqun and rijisun, yet, allow the Prophets/Messengers and all of the righteous among them, for ages, to eat swine? This just makes no sense.
And this one
ayat 6146 makes clear that ONLY animals with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep, were made haram for the Jews to eat as food. Since pigs have no claws they cannot be haram for the Jews
Now here is how PB translates 6146
And to those who were Jews We made haram every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both
Does anyone see an ONLY in this ayat? ?
I don?t.
I looked for the phrase "to those who were Jews we ONLY made haram ..."
I looked at different translations ... focused on the arabic ... guess what? ... no ONLY ....
Heavens!!! There is no ONLY there!!!
NEWS FLASH There is no ONLY there!!!!
I REPEAT There is no ONLY there!!!!
ONE MORE TIME There is no ONLY there!!!!
What does that do to PB?s logical argument?.... It makes it rather ?ill seeming? is what it does ?
Numerous people ? including my self ? have already written pages on how PB's stance ... supported by his mysterious ONLY ...doesn?t hold any water... and highlighted how PB changes stance when it gets too hot for him ?
But you know what? ? I?ll make it really simple
There is no mysterious ONLY ? therefore PB has no logical argument ?
?Lahma Khinzeeran? ? irrespective of what it means ? is haram for all mankind ? and always has been ? Period.
Based on this ? All those who think that PB?s logical argument is ? ill seeming ? say AYE ?
PS if you say NAY ... come prepared to reveal the secret identity of the mysterious ONLY ? just where in the heck does it come from? ?
-
Peace Thor,
Aye Aye Capn'... ill seeming is just the word I've been looking for...
-
Peace Thor,
AYE, I agree that PB's logical argument is indeed ill seeming !
-
Salaam All,
Me too says AYE.
I know I haven't been so nice before in this thread but it was because I already from the start was very suspicious about this.
May God guide us to the right path and increase our knowledge.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Peace Danish,
I see that you have shown some more scientific ignorance in your post. Just as expected.
Cirrhosis, a disease, is generally an invasion of microorganisms which cause it and not by meat itself.
Microorganisms are only one cause of cirrhosis; there are many others, and one of the biggest is alcoholic liver disease. Some other non-infectious causes are autoimmune hepatitis, inherited diseases including Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, hemochromatosis, Wilson's disease, galactosemia, and glycogen storage diseases, nonalcoholis steatohepatitis (NASH), blocked bile ducts, drugs and toxins, and congestive heart failure. In addition to that, according to the scientific studies I quoted from, pig meat is another cause of cirrhosis.
Any meat can be infected by such microorganisms which can cause Cirrhosis, hence not specific to pig?s meat, understand
Some more scientific ignorance. This is getting hilarious. Only hepatitis B, C, and D viruses are the microorganisms that can cause cirrhosis, and none of these are transmitted by eating infected meat. The only hepatitis virus that is transmitted by eating infected meat is hepatitis A, which does not cause cirrhosis. Pig's meat causing cirrhosis is not due to it being infected.
What conclusions, what proofs, which studies and which journals?
That is what happens when you talk to someone who is ignorant of the scientific process. I will paste the references of the relevant articles and the scientific journals again. Go look them up in a library and do not be lazy. Any scientific person will easily be able to read what I am writing as follows, and will know exactly which article in which journal
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".
- 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
The word ?statistics? is also wrongly used in your own statement above. I do not see any statistics either in your entire post and has nothing to do with my quoted statement.
Some more scientific ignorance. I never used the word "statistics" in my arguments. I used the phrase "statistical significance". Go take a course in statistics and learn what "statistical significance" means, including what "p" value means.
Pig meat is NOT bad by nature/creation.
Says who ? Please back up your claims by scientific studies and give me the references that show that pig meat does not cause disease of noninfectious etiology. I have backed up my claims by an extensive reference list. All the links you gave, nowhere show that pig meat DOES NOT cause disease of noninfectious origin.
Anecdotal data??? What I presented was a natural and factual occurring incident, not a scientific theory.
Some more scientific ignorance. It clearly shows that you have no idea what "anecdotal data" means.
Anecdotal data = natural and factual occurring incident, not based on scientific evidence. Anecdotal is not scientific. You say "anecdotal data ???" and then say "what I presented was........" and actually define "anecdotal data" and then at the end equate "anecdotal data" to "scientific theory". Hilarious rotfl
But yeah, go ahead and research all you want on how a human can be transformed into pig and a stick into snake, but please don?t present some baseless scientific unproven and inconclusive analogies or some magical loop-de-loop coming from wonderland into play.
So you do not believe Allah's words when He tells you that He turned Moses' staff into a serpent ?
2632 So he cast his staff, then it manifested into a serpent.
I have noticed that you did not comment at all on the translation of "lahma alkhinzeerin" according to the Arabic grammar rules. Grammatically, there is NO WAY you or anyone can translate "lahma alkhinzeerin" into "ill seeming meat". Making "alkhinzeerin" an adjective of "lahma", will violate the grammar rules completely. Grammatically, the ONLY translation of "lahma alkhinzeerin" can be "meat of pig". Be careful of mistranslating Allah's words, for that is tantamount to saying lies about Allah
378 And from amongst them is a group that twist their tongues with the Scripture so that you may think it is from the Scripture, while it is not from the Scripture, and they say it is from God while it is not from God, and they say about God lies while they know.
Regards,
Tanveer
-
Peace Danish, all,
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Meat \Meat, n.
- Food, in general; anything eaten for nourishment, either
by man or beast. Hence, the edible part of anything; as,
the meat of a lobster, a nut, or an egg. --Chaucer.
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb
bearing seed, . . . to you it shall be for meat.
--Gen. i. 29.Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for
you. --Gen. ix. 3.-
The flesh of animals used as food; esp., animal muscle;
as, a breakfast of bread and fruit without meat. -
Specifically, dinner; the chief meal. --Chaucer.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Flesh \Flesh, n. sk, D. vleesch, OS. fl?sk, OHG. fleisc, G. fleisch,
Icel. & Dan. flesk lard, bacon, pork, Sw. flsk.]- The aggregate of the muscles, fat, and other tissues which
cover the framework of bones in man and other animals;
especially, the muscles.
- Food, in general; anything eaten for nourishment, either
-
Salaams Folks,
I think I go along with our friend PB on this issue, having said this before on one other thread.Firstly there are some of us who believe in using our common sense and the knowledge mankind is/has gathered over time , rather then the translations of the quran which are faulty ? and every one here I think agrees with me on this that they are faulty.
Secondly there are some of us who are reluctant to change; I think this reluctance is in us all ? but more in some of us.
And these people also believe in things like sticks changing to snakes and all that ? although this is a stark contradiction to the knowledge mankind has gained over time, people still believe in something?s written over centuries ago ? I mean the translation and not the actual quranic knowledge.
You may like to know even some here are doctors, and they know that the health of people is of prime importance to health authorities world wide and for that countries have taken measures to penalise people for using /selling bad meats AND/BUT not selling PIGS MEAT AS SUCH AND THIS I THINK YOU WILL AGREE was with the help of those with knowledge in this field, health experts and such.
Should one believe in?
1 Common sense and knowledge gained over years or,
2 A copy of the translation which I believe was done by a monk in the 11th century or so. ????????????.
And so much of the Bible is in the actual translation of the quran - check it please,there are a number of topics in what's new here on free minds.Although you must have come across something like ?O the Muslim knew this 14 centuries ago and they are only finding this out now!? And to me this applies to Bad meat ? what the health authorities are banning now using the strong hand of the law . Bad meat causes food poisoning and other things ? and is a killer as well.
But you won?t find me eating pig though because of the programming I have received over my childhood ? I think.
Gods Blessings on us All.
-
Peace,
And to me this applies to Bad meat
What is bad meat Mz357? Please tell me how I would gauge meat is bad? Does it look 'ill seeming' in all the cases? Or can it be 'well seeming' YET bad?
But you won?t find me eating pig though because of the programming I have received over my childhood ? I think.
Right, so coming to the conclusions you did wasn't very convincing to yourself?
-
mz357,
I have said before and state again that the definitional argument on what "Lahma Khanzeeran" means, is a valid debate ...
I am not an arabic expert and have therefore read with interest what the participants of this thread have brought to the table in this regard ... yours included ...
what I can't stand, however, is the dishonest mixing of false logic in this discourse just to prove a point on the definition ...
I know enough arabic to know that the word for ONLY in arabic is FAQAT .... and I know that it isn't in ayat 6146 ... nor a synonym for that matter ...
so it behooves those who have done this to accept that they are wrong in this regard ... and stop trying to push an agenda on a false basis ...
that being done, we can continue to try to come to an understanding on the meaning ... or perhaps ultimately ... agree to disagree on the definition ... and that will be fine ...
... to you your religion and to me mine ... no compulsion in religion ... I'll see you on the last day we'll take it up with the big guy ... whatever ... it's cool ...
my issue has merely been people bringing crap to the table and then insisting it doesn't stink ...
incidentally speaking of which ... here is a lil quote i caught at the following website ... http//www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/CU/matterofhealth.htm
I haven't done any research to verify it ... I only add it here because I had such a visceral reaction when i read it ... and wanted to share ...
Even when stacked in cages, piglets thrive on offal when only the pig in the top cage receives food. Farmers have increased their profits by feeding free raw sewage to pigs. Chicken farmers often keep a hog so they can dispose of dead chickens without having to bury them" (Russell, p. 81).
yummy ....
-
THOR, SC, SWEDEN, TANVEER,
Thor, you're becoming hysterical again, calm down.
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.
Main Entry EVERY being each individual or part of a group without exception.
Listen, I'll accept that there is no "only" in the ayat, no problem. Let's change "only" then...to "every", kewl? LOL! Now, my problem is solved, however, yours and the others is not. Ayat 6146 still says that, the animals with claws were made haram for the Jews to eat. Now, have you ever seen a pig...with claws? In that, pigs do not have claws, they are exempt from the animals made haram to the Jews, period, end of story. Now, given that Allah did not make the pig haram to the Jews, guess what?...you and the others cannot extrapolate or claim that He did.
16116 And, for what your tongues describe, do not utter the lie, (saying) This is lawful and this is unlawful, in order to forge a lie against Allah; surely those who forge the lie against Allah shall not prosper.
What else do you have? wink
If the claw don't fit...you must acquit. lol
-
Salaam all,
I have no understanding that this is fun, you think it's fun to make people upset!?
And I think also this is only a mess,playing with verses of Quran like you are doing,WHAT A SHAME!!!!!
No one is learning something good here it's only your already from the beginning understanding of this issue that's seems to count.
It's better you move on to something else because you don't gain anything from continue this thread with your attitude of looking down on us who don't believe in you.
Man you aren't a winner so wipe away your silly smile on your lips, smiles of pride isn't real smiles.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
LOL Rant, rave, bluff, then duck, cut and run. This your m.o.; you're finished, Savage. I let you get away with not answering those 15 questions, but not this time. Your refusal to answer just establishes that you cannot defend your assertion and, rather than simply admit that, you prefer to change the subject, bluff, stall, deflect, sashay around, duck, run, rant, rave, etc. etc. etc. You can't learn anything behaving like that. Get honest and answer post haste.
Same guy who has the audacity to say that he asked other people to calm down roll My answers have been what they've always been...have the courtesy and integrity to answer other people's points first before expecting answers perpetually, but that's not on the cards for this user.
Stop groussing. Listen, we all accept that you are the paragon of integrity, courtesy, and wonderfulness, o.k.? Now, with that said and honors bestowed on you, please direct your attention to the following posts and answer them Quranically. Prove me wrong that you are NOT about...changing the subject, bluffing, stalling, deflecting, sashaying around the principle issue, ducking , running, ranting, raving, etc. etc. etc
-
Posted Sat Sep 03, 2005 550 pm
-
Posted Sat Sep 03, 2005 928 pm
-
-
Salaam all,
I have no understanding that this is fun, you think it's fun to make people upset!?
And I think also this is only a mess,playing with verses of Quran like you are doing,WHAT A SHAME!!!!!
No one is learning something good here it's only your already from the beginning understanding of this issue that's seems to count.
It's better you move on to something else because you don't gain anything from continue this thread with your attitude of looking down on us who don't believe in you.
Man you aren't a winner so wipe away your silly smile on your lips, smiles of pride isn't real smiles.
Peace
Sis MajidahHmmm...you don't seem to mind when others post smilies at me...very selective morally goin' on thar, Swede. Listen, you're changing the subject and making things personal. Let's just stay on topic, shall we? Now, do you have a clear and coherent argument to state? If so, then state it for all to examine, if not, don't post personal stuff, cool? But keep this mind...If the claw don't fit...you must acquit. And that is the bottomline. wink
-
mz357,
my issue has merely been people bringing crap to the table and then insisting it doesn't stink ...
incidentally speaking of which ... here is a lil quote i caught at the following website ... http//www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/CU/matterofhealth.htm
Following is the opening to the article you posted
Clean and Unclean Meats A Matter of Health?
Why did God, in the Scriptures, distinguish between clean and unclean meats-the animals humans may or may not eat? Is there more to the story? Can we find a health connection?
The specific reason God gave the Israelites for forbidding them to eat any unclean animals or even touching their carcasses was to "be holy, for I am holy" (Leviticus 1144-45). Here God does not distinguish between clean and unclean animals specifically for health's sake.
And there you have it. The article is nothing but conjecture/extrapolation. Allah says
5328 But they have no knowledge therein. They follow nothing but conjecture; and conjecture avails nothing against Truth.
733 Say the things that my Lord has indeed forbidden/made haram are shameful deeds, whether open or secret...and saying things about Allah of which yoy have no knowledge.
1736 And pursue not that of which thou have no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning).
Allah, relative to food, specifically, in regard to the Jews says
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 Truth.
Now, what is the realtionship between ayat 6146 and 55? I've explained this in depth
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....
At the time these ayats were being revealed, what animals for food were not haram for the People of the Book/The Jews to eat? That's right ALL the animals which were...CLAWLESS. Well, the pig is a clawless animal/qaudruped, hence, at the time these ayats were being revealed, the pig would have had to have been halal for both the Jews and the Muslims, because it was never made haram by Allah in first place. With that said, lahma khinzerin cannot mean pig in the literal sense, because that would then contradict ayats 55 and 6146.
-
SaLaM PB
I just have to say. This is better than Jerry Springer Show Looooooooooollllllllll.
Well, the pig is a clawless animal/qaudruped, hence, at the time these ayats were being revealed, the pig would have had to have been halal for both the Jews and the Muslims, because it was never made haram by Allah in first place.
4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that part the hoof the camel, because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you.
5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you.
6 And the hare, because she cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, she is unclean unto you.
7 And the swine, because he parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, but cheweth not the cud, he is unclean unto you.With that said, lahma khinzerin cannot mean pig in the literal sense, because that would then contradict ayats 55 and 6146.
No you got that wrong. It actually effects the rotation of Jupiter.
-
Salaams SC,
I believe the quranic Dictionery explained this"lahma khinzerin" = Flash you see is Bad
and "see" is not just with the eyes ,it can be see,smell taste -literally using any of your senses.
I am into foods and believe me meat you buy today ,unless you keep it in a fridge will be off tomorow ,and more then likely cause food poisoning - and you can usualy tell from its smell if its off.
Just imagine meat in the hot countries.
But having answered your quistion i think each of us is capable of making a good enough judgment from the above posts to realise what is falshood and the Truth.
Salaams All.
-
Salaam all,
I wonder what the arabic word for pig is?
Peace
Sis Majidah