Is Swine Hallal
-
Salaam all,
I agree with Marie and Tay, your thoughts is interested indeed.
I meant it would be good to try to figure out how long time back the pig has been in move in an area and known to people.
And the word pig and swine in my language swedish it means something dirty or you associate it with unclean things.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Peace Danish,
Priest_Bokmie bought about his much anticipated analysis by thoroughly studying several verses of the Quran which no one here, including me, had the slightest clue. His points are strong, interesting, logical and validated. It is baffling to note that none of you has cared enough to address the questions asked for. Ignoring the questions, giving incomplete answers, misquoting, side-tracking, misleading, counter questioning without first answering, finger-pointing and venturing out to talk about something else has become a norm for those who simply cannot either support their claims, are wishy-washy and/or are simply ignorant of the facts. These sorts of tactics are annoying, hypocritical and immature.
I am ignoring PB because he has been ignoring my questions to him which I asked him WAY before his questions to me, and has evaded and eluded them. Until he answers ALL my questions to him, which are all based on Qur'aanic facts, I WILL NOT answer him or reply to his posts.
-
Peace Tay,
Tuning in from the sidelines, I gotta say, Priest's argument is solid. But that's just my opinion.
How can PB's argument be solid when it creates a GRAVE and SERIOUS contradiction in Qur'aan ?
Refer to my post at the following link to show you how his reasoning creates the serious contradiction
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=53848#53848
Also he has persistently refused and evaded answering my questions to him, which would expose his incorrect reasoning and flawed logic.
Following is the link to my post containing questions put forth to him
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=53522#53522
I think it's plausible that at some point in time, "Khanzir" simply meant "ill-seeming flesh", and was later adapted to describe the pig because of the creature's nasty habits. I have no evidence either way, but I do admit that this scenario is possible.
Please base your conclusions on solid facts supported by Qur'aan, and not upon your "plausible conjecture" and personal opinions. The internal structure of the Arabic phrases used in Qur'aan and the internal grammar of Qur'aan make it IMPOSSIBLE for "lahma khinzeerin" (6145) or "lahma alkhinzeeri" (2173, 16115) to mean "ill seeming meat". According to the internal structure of similar phrases used in Qur'aan, "alkhinzeeri" can only be a noun, and "lahma" its adjective, not the other way around. So "lahma alkhinzeeri" can ONLY mean "meat of pig" according to the internal grammar of Qur'aan.
Please see my post at the following link for Qur'aanic facts supporting my above exposition
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=53918#53918
Regards,
Tanveer
-
Peace all,
I arrived at the same conclusion that Marie did, of only the good food being lawful to COI per 393, although through a different line of reasoning, which I believe is more sound and is also based on Qur'aanic facts.
394 All the food was MADE lawful to the Children of Israel except what Israel forbade for himself before the Torah was sent down. Say "Bring the Torah and recite it if you are truthful."
From the wording "was MADE lawful to COI except" it is clear that there were exceptions to "the food that was MADE lawful", so ALL food could not have been lawful to COI at ANY time.
Secondly, if all possible food was lawful to them without exceptions (which would go against the wording of the ayat), then "what is dedicated to other than Allah" would also have been MADE lawful, which would mean that Allah sanctioned shirk !! Allah never ever sanctioned shirk, so it could not have been all possible food.
There was clearly exceptions to "the food MADE lawful", and those exceptions were established by Allah, which is clear by the words "all food was MADE lawful to COI except......"
The restrictions were either equal to or more than what are specified in 6145 and 6146 and are in the original Torah.
In 587, The God tells us what the good things are
590 O you who believe, do not forbid the good things that God has made lawful to you, and do not aggress; God does not like the aggressors.
So clearly the good things are those that are made lawful to us. In 393 All food was MADE lawful EXCEPT some things. That clearly shows that some food was restricted to COI, and except those things, all the remaining food was made lawful to them. That food, other than the exceptions, that was made lawful to COI was good according to 587. Therefore, in 393 "all food was made lawful to COI except......" means that all good food was made lawful to COI.
-
TANVEER,
I am ignoring PB because he has been ignoring my questions to him which I asked him WAY before his questions to me, and has evaded and eluded them. Until he answers ALL my questions to him, which are all based on Qur'aanic facts, I WILL NOT answer him or reply to his posts.
You're ignoring me, because you find yourself unable to defend against my analysis; you're fooling no one.
I will answer your questions one by one, beginning with the following. What will be your excuse when you don't answer this time?
TANVEER According to 6146, DEAD ANIMALS, BLOOD, "LAHMA KHINZEERIN", and "WHAT IS DEDICATED TO OTHER THAN ALLAH", are lawful to Jews, as they are not mentioned in the haram categories of food for Jews, and is considered included in the food of the people of the scripture.
Therefore, it follows that per 55, DEAD ANIMALS, BLOOD, "LAHMA KHINZEERIN", and "WHAT IS DEDICATED TO OTHER THAN ALLAH", are lawful to the believers, because it is the food of the people of the scripture.
Your analysis is a canard and sleight of hand. What you and the others fail to accept is this were dead animals/road kill, blood, the ill-seeming ever considered to be food by Allah or the Jews, other than, to ward of starvation? Does your reason tell you that, Musa, Ibrahim, Jesus, Noah, Adam, Joseph, Maryam, Ishmael, Jacob, etc. as a steady diet, ate blood, dead animals/road kill, the ill-seeming or food dedicated to other than Allah? Are you willing to state that these righteous people and the their righteous followers, did these things? To accept your position is to accept that, Allah, allowed these righteous people to eat things, knowing all along, that they were haram! If these things were haram at the time of the advent of Al-Quran, because they are fasiqun and rijisun, then, they must have been fasiqun and rijisun before Al-Quran was revealed, otherwise, Allah, allowed his righteous servants to eat, what He knew all along, to be contaminated/filthy food. Now, why would Allah do such a thing? Now, are you going to assign your notion to Allah that, those things were halal to the former believers?
Now, If you cannot unhesitantly stand by your notion, with Quranic proof that, the pre-Quranic righteous ate those things for food, then you are only conjecturing and your canard/sleight of hand has been exposed and your argument dismantled.
Another thing which you and the others are want to accept isayat 6146 states, relative the specific category of animals which were made haram for the Jews to eat, where animals with CLAWS. This we know for a supreme FACT. Now, another supreme fact we know or should know, is...pigs don't have CLAWS! which eliminates them as being haram. Now, all of your notions of grammar are not going to overcome these two facts, end of this story.
What's you reply?
-
Peace Tanveer,
You asked
How can PB's argument be solid when it creates a GRAVE and SERIOUS contradiction in Qur'aan ?
Honestly, both sides of the argument have created contradictions. I'm not sure why you'd call his contradictions "GRAVE" and "SERIOUS" without an adjective for your own.
Refer to my post at the following link to show you how his reasoning creates the serious contradiction
I've read the entire thread and base opinions on what I've read.
Please base your conclusions on solid facts supported by Qur'aan, and not upon your "plausible conjecture" and personal opinions.
I didn't make any conclusions, brother. When comeone says, "I think it's plausible" and then ends with "I do admit that this scenario is possible", he has not drawn a conclusion, he has stated a plausible possibility - an opinion. If you don't want to address this possibility that's fine, but there's no need to change my opinion into a conclusion and then tell me not to base my conclusions on opinions. shock
Thanks,
Tay -
PEACE, MARIE,
While I agree to disagree, it is not proper to for you close with this and, at the same time, make charges.
All your invented contradictions about the meat of pig disappear in the light of the Reading. All the answers you have requested are already exposed in the previous posts.
You have yet to respond to my last posts to you which answers your charge that I've "invented contradictions". You, Tanveer, Savage, Jaxal, Platinum, relative to this discussion, need to learn some things
-
the difference between halal and tayyib, there is one.
-
that pigs do not have claws.
-
nothing by nature is created bad/fasiqun/rijisun.
-
the pig is particular species of animal.
-
that there were no food restrictions on the the Chidren of Israel until the they trangressed the Law.
-
that the COI, made things haram for themselves, which they had no right to do.
-
only Allah makes halal and haram and whatever He did not decree as haram is halal.
-
you cannot make haram what Allah didn't .
-
rats, by far, are more "filthy" than pigs...rats aint haram to eat, are they ?
-
it is not proper to make claims which you cannot prove. That is opinion making/conjecturing and that IS haram to do .
I leave you in peace as well.
-
-
PEACE, TAY,
Honestly, both sides of the argument have created contradictions. I'm not sure why you'd call his contradictions "GRAVE" and "SERIOUS" without an adjective for your own.
Relative to me anyway, please point out the contradictions, as you see them, so that I may correct myself and make certain that I know what I'm talking about. I would also, if you don't mind, as you to point out the contradictions in Tanveer's position. All of this will be very helpful to all parties concerned. Thanks and peace.
-
Peace PB,
You said9. rats, by far, are more "filthy" than pigs...rats aint haram to eat, are they ?
Lol, ain't haram to eat lol lol lol.
I guess we better give a d...mn about what people eat or not eat because If we should really follow what God says in the Quran that all good food is lawful to eat then all have different opinion what is good or not good, it seems like this thread is about that, our opinion, we are guessing what is good etc.
So PB I'm not mean when I say that you can eat whatever you like, because if you think pig is good to eat ,well eat it!
Peace
Sis Majidah -
PEACE, TANVEER,
I arrived at the same conclusion that Marie did, of only the good food being lawful to COI per 393, although through a different line of reasoning, which I believe is more sound and is also based on Qur'aanic facts.
You "believe" or do you KNOW, which is it? Very different terms.
394 All the food was MADE lawful to the Children of Israel except what Israel made haram for himself before the Torah was sent down. Say "Bring the Torah and recite it if you are truthful."
From the wording "was MADE lawful to COI except" it is clear that there were exceptions to "the food that was MADE lawful", so ALL food could not have been lawful to COI at ANY time. Secondly, if all possible food was lawful to them without exceptions (which would go against the wording of the ayat), then "what is dedicated to other than Allah" would also have been MADE lawful, which would mean that Allah sanctioned shirk !! Allah never ever sanctioned shirk, so it could not have been all possible food. So clearly the good things are those that are made lawful to us. In 393 All food was MADE lawful EXCEPT some things. That clearly shows that some food was restricted to COI, and except those things, all the remaining food was made lawful to them.
You can't read
-
ALL means ALL, hence, ALL foods, by Allah's Decree, were halal to the COI, except, what Allah made haram for their TRANSGRESSIONS 6146 and NOT because some species of aninaml for food, by virtue of its creation, was fasiqun/rijisun/bad.
-
The, "exceptions", in ayat 393, were NOT by Allah's Decree, but the decree of the COI. THEY made haram things which Allah DIDN"T. Humans are not allowed to make anything haram.
There is no doubt that you have totally miscomprehended ayat 393.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
-
PEACE, SWEDEN,
PBM You said9. rats, by far, are more "filthy" than pigs...rats aint haram to eat, are they ?
Lol, ain't haram to eat lol lol lol. I guess we better give a d...mn about what people eat or not eat because If we should really follow what God says in the Quran that all good food is lawful to eat then all have different opinion what is good or not good, it seems like this thread is about that, our opinion, we are guessing what is good etc.
Good/tayyib and halal/lawful, are different terms. Whatever Allah did not decree as haram, is a halal. All species of animals are halal/lawful for humans to eat, however, not all humans can eat the same species and have it agree with them i.e. allergies. If people want to claim, and erroneously so that, pigs are filthy, well, rats are more filthy than pigs, so why aren't they haram? Remember, the bubonic killed millioms of Europeans during the Dark Ages, rats were the vector not pigs. Rats would not be tayyib for me, however, the Viet Cong troops during the Viet Nam Police Action, often ate rats to sustain them.
So PB I'm not mean when I say that you can eat whatever you like, because if you think pig is good to eat ,well eat it!
If you think I've spent the time and energy in this discussion in order to justify eating pork, then this is all I have to say to you
So Mahj, I'm not mean when I say that...this discussion..is just simply over your head and is not for you.
Peace.
-
Peace Tanveer,
The internal structure of the Arabic phrases used in Qur'aan and the internal grammar of Qur'aan make it IMPOSSIBLE for "lahma khinzeerin" (6145) or "lahma alkhinzeeri" (2173, 16115) to mean "ill seeming meat". According to the internal structure of similar phrases used in Qur'aan, "alkhinzeeri" can only be a noun, and "lahma" its adjective, not the other way around. So "lahma alkhinzeeri" can ONLY mean "meat of pig" according to the internal grammar of Qur'aan.
alkhinzeeri cannot be a noun and does not mean ONLY "meat of pig". Let me break it up and then analyze what it means and how it is understood in the verse
al-khinzeer-i =..........
al-khinzeer-an =..........
khinzeer-in =..........Fill in the blanks for me please. Note the al is a syntax and the i, an, and in are suffixes, correct?. When a suffix or a prefix is added to a noun, it gets modified and becomes WHAT?
Not that I am any good in Arabic linguistics but do have some basic knowledge and its always good to learn more as we discuss things.
-
SaLaM Danish
First of all, dont mention me being away for a long time when your mind is not capable of even compreheding what i have been doing, studing, or gone through. Ok? And what you call "HISLAMIC ATTITUDE" is what most of us call following God. IF having a open mind means twisting the word of God to suite urself, then no, i dont have an open mind. And what dignity and diligence are u talking about? this thread is a joke. Should be in the trash section. None of the so called arguments provided by PRiest or anyone who thinks pork is allowed by God were either solid neither did they hold any wiegh. Infact, its one of the most foolish argument i have come across yet from people who want to eat pork. Prove Khanzeer means pig. How stupid can it get? Lollllllll I swear i have come across people saying pig is halal becoz of so and so, but this has to be by far the most hilarious argument. Prove Khanzeer means Pig.
Are you saying that arabs around the world are not stupid? That they dont know the meaning of their own language? And here you are with Priest who has it all figured out? ive lost count of the people who think just like you. Its that common. And you think the most intelligeble argument to be presented ever is how can we prove Khanzeer means pig? Right brother. Christians have a better argument for it. They say its not in the New Testiment. That would be a more sensible argument since it really isnt in the new testimont. So plz brother, save the "thorough and proper study of the Quran as per our Ways of Lives" for something else.
People have been studying the Quran longer than either you or Priest have lived. And they have never said that it means anything else but pig. But here you both are, not only saying that all those people are wrong, but also that God is wrong in both Quran and Torah? there are 100 excuses to not do something you dont want. Asking to prove Khanzeer means pig is one of them. It cant really be put any other way. And all this to make urself feel better while u disobey God? Just like people say when drinking Alcohol. " oh its good for the heart" . Yes brother. Real intelligent an solid argument.
-
Peace Danish,
alkhinzeeri cannot be a noun and does not mean ONLY "meat of pig".
Please give evidence from Qur'aan's internal grammar and sentence structure to support this statement that you made, to back it up. I have already given my evidences in my posts.
I was considering the phrase "lahma alkhinzeeri" as a whole, and what "alkhinzeeri" means IN THAT PHRASE, not the word "alkhinzeeri" in isolation. In that phrase as used in 2173 and 16115, "alkhinzeeri" cannot be the adjective of "lahma", according to the internal grammar and internal sentence structure of Qur'aan. If you think otherwise, please provide your evidence from Qur'aan.
-
Peace Tay,
PEACE, TAY,
Honestly, both sides of the argument have created contradictions. I'm not sure why you'd call his contradictions "GRAVE" and "SERIOUS" without an adjective for your own.
Relative to me anyway, please point out the contradictions, as you see them, so that I may correct myself and make certain that I know what I'm talking about. I would also, if you don't mind, as you to point out the contradictions in Tanveer's position. All of this will be very helpful to all parties concerned. Thanks and peace.
I agree with PB. Tay, can you please honor PB's request.
I didn't make any conclusions, brother. When comeone says, "I think it's plausible" and then ends with "I do admit that this scenario is possible", he has not drawn a conclusion, he has stated a plausible possibility - an opinion. If you don't want to address this possibility that's fine, but there's no need to change my opinion into a conclusion and then tell me not to base my conclusions on opinions.
Agreed. I stand corrected.
-
Peace all,
Pig facts & history
Pigs have been the victims of bad press, right back to the Old Testament, where there were prohibations against eating "unclean meat". Phrases such as "dirty pig" and "filthy as a pigsty", as well as the 1960's name for cops have all given pigs a bad reputation. What people have to realize is that pigs have been an important part of our society for a long time.
Hogs have been important to man for centuries. They were first hunted in the forset for meat, then used to root for truffles in France. Pigs have been harnessed for driving, trained to hunt, used to clear forsets, and raised for lard over the past centuries. Today, hogs are responsible for industrial and pharmaceutical products such as insulin, heart valves, skin for burn victims, ball bearings, and hair brushes. Now to anyone who says that pigs really don't have a place on earth...think twice!
http//www.geocities.com/Heartland/Acres/6329/pighistory.htmlPigs are one of the most intelligent mammals, and some, such as the Asian pot-bellied pig, are kept as pets. Pigs are reportedly more intelligent and more trainable than dogs and cats.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigshttp//www.askthemeatman.com/interesting_pork_facts.htm
http//www.askthemeatman.com/pork_freezer_storage_times.htm
-
Peace Danish,
Hogs have been important to man for centuries. They were first hunted in the forset for meat, then used to root for truffles in France. Pigs have been harnessed for driving, trained to hunt, used to clear forsets, and raised for lard over the past centuries. Today, hogs are responsible for industrial and pharmaceutical products such as insulin, heart valves, skin for burn victims, ball bearings, and hair brushes. Now to anyone who says that pigs really don't have a place on earth...think twice!
Agreed. Only the meat of pig is haram for human consumption as per 6145, 2173, 53, 16115. Rest of the pig including the shuhooma, and other uses are allowed.
-
Peace Tanveer,
This is what I asked for
alkhinzeeri cannot be a noun and does not mean ONLY "meat of pig". Let me break it up and then analyze what it means and how it is understood in the verse
al-khinzeer-i =..........
al-khinzeer-an =..........
khinzeer-in =..........Fill in the blanks for me please. Note the al is a syntax and the i, an, and in are suffixes, correct?. When a suffix or a prefix is added to a noun, it gets modified and becomes WHAT?
And this is how you responded to my above quote
Please give evidence from Qur'aan's internal grammar and sentence structure to support this statement that you made, to back it up. I have already given my evidences in my posts.
I was considering the phrase "lahma alkhinzeeri" as a whole, and what "alkhinzeeri" means IN THAT PHRASE, not the word "alkhinzeeri" in isolation. In that phrase as used in 2173 and 16115, "alkhinzeeri" cannot be the adjective of "lahma", according to the internal grammar and internal sentence structure of Qur'aan. If you think otherwise, please provide your evidence from Qur'aan.
Changing tactics, huh!!! By the way, where did you learn the terms ?internal grammar? or ?internal sentence? from?
And this is what I mentioned earlier (in part) in retaliation to how discussions you guys carry out
...Ignoring the questions, giving incomplete answers, misquoting, side-tracking, misleading, counter questioning without first answering, finger-pointing and venturing out to talk about something else has become a norm for those who simply cannot either support their claims, are wishy-washy and/or are simply ignorant of the facts. These sorts of tactics are annoying, hypocritical and immature.
Extreme denial and beating around the bush. What a way to go, yet Every Which Way But Loose?
-
Peace Tanveer,
Hogs have been important to man for centuries. They were first hunted in the forset for meat, then used to root for truffles in France. Pigs have been harnessed for driving, trained to hunt, used to clear forsets, and raised for lard over the past centuries. Today, hogs are responsible for industrial and pharmaceutical products such as insulin, heart valves, skin for burn victims, ball bearings, and hair brushes. Now to anyone who says that pigs really don't have a place on earth...think twice!
Agreed. Only the meat of pig is haram for human consumption as per 6145, . Rest of the pig including the shuhooma, and other uses are allowed.
Certainly not. All ill-seeming meat (not specific to any animal whatsoever) is restricted for human consumption as per 6145. 2173, 53, 16115 when understood LOGICALLY, GRAMMATICALLY and NATURALLY.
All you are doing is because the verse says so, hence Allah says so, without any thought and reason. Bummer!
-
saLaM Danish
The real bummer is you are going against God. Making excuses is one thing for eating pork. But this? all the drama for what? Dolphines are also intelligent animals. Lollllllllllllllllllll DAMN! Dont you think its enough that God says dont eat pork? Lolllllll