Is Swine Hallal
-
Salaams All,
I think its too easy! But may be its not.
JM said
" dead meat (carrion), blood are forbidden, to Children of Israel ?
does it not contradict with "All the food was made lawful to the Children of Israel " ( ?
Food is what is good for us , only.
so "NO"
Allah is simply clariying what is not food for us , as we didn't know what was good or bad for us or what should be food and what isn't food.
I think.But what do you think?
Gods Blessings.
-
Peace Priest,
From the above definitions then, manna . As manna means grace/favor and salwa means comfort/consolation, these definitions, then, are totally consistent with what they COI must have experienced during their sojourn and, at the same time, these definitions dispell any notion of a discrepancy between ayats 6146 and 7160, as albion is claiming.
In addition let me add
"?MANNA-WAS-SALWA? = Allah?s provision of sustenance that reaches all members of the community indiscriminately. Literally it also means fowl meat and sweet fruit." (Dr. Shabbir Ahmad)
You will find no contradiction within the reading. The traditional rendition of manna and salwa is biblical...As always with the ahl as sunnah wa jamaat and other sects that use manmade books like the bible for a source of guidance. The reading will explain itself, it is a book that makes things manifest (ba-ya-na). The traditionalist reject this claim and blindly follow the hypocritical arabs. The God is ever sending and ever warning.
-
peace All,
It seems the answer was staring me in the face!
- All the food was made lawful to the Children of Israel except what Israel forbade for himself before the Torah was sent down...
It took me many attempts to grasp the meaning of the above statement, but now it is clear
It means whatever Israel forbade/restricted for himself was unlawful/restricted (also) for the CoI, and this was before the Torah was sent down.
The part in red is a statement of fact/rule/law BUT it is being modified by the "illa" (except).
Thus, the question is, what did Israel forbid for himself? Well, its very likely he was a prophet , thus held the same restrictions as prior prophets, i.e. the ones we have in 'al quran'. Being a prophet means you are under direct guidance, and under such direction one does not forbid anything without authority (usually), thus it is safe to assume what he forbade was with authority. Furthermore, the sign is negating a false statement/belief by the Jews, thus it will be truthful/correct, thus it is highly unlikely to be a personal restriction that Israel placed on himself and others.
The Torah must have added some, as a punishment, which ties in nicely with 4160 & 6146. 4160 also shows an order to thingsPM Because of the wickedness from those who are Jews, We made forbidden to them the good things that were lawful to them; and for their deterring many from the path of God.
For the Jews, some lawful/good things became forbidden. One must have guidance beforehand to know what was good/lawful, thus guidance on food was present prior to the additional restrictions.
The reason 393 points out "before the Torah was sent down" is because the Torah changed the restrictions! 393 is referencing a point in time prior to this changing. The only restrictions we know of prior to the additions for the Jews are the ones in 'al quran' (already dead, running blood, meat of pig, dedicated to other than The God), thus this is what Israel followed, which would mean this has been the way, at the very least for prophets since Israel (and most likely has always been the way?). That is why the additions (made for the Jews) were rescinded/repealed in 'al quran' taking it back to the original/prior law.
393 ends with 'Say "Bring the Torah and recite it if you are truthful".' implying the Jews were making a false statement or following something false. They may have been saying their man-made AND/OR additional restrictions have been in place since Jacob/Israel and as such are correct, not the ones brought forth in 'al quran'.
Wakas
-
PEace be upon you Wakas,
The reason 393 points out "before the Torah was sent down" is because the Torah changed the restrictions!
I have problems with that, there is NO CHANGE in the God's way.
We have to find a way to translate the words "torah", "israel", etc.
-
Peace Wakas,
It seems the answer was staring me in the face!
- All the food was made lawful to the Children of Israel except what Israel forbade for himself before the Torah was sent down...
It took me many attempts to grasp the meaning of the above statement, but now it is clear
It means whatever Israel forbade/restricted for himself was unlawful/restricted (also) for the CoI, and this was before the Torah was sent down.
The part in red is a statement of fact/rule/law BUT it is being modified by the "illa" (except).You got it brother Wakas, praise be to Allah !! I have been trying to convince a friend of the same understanding in pm's.
The remainder of your post is thought provoking and makes sense.
Regards,
Tanveer
-
Peace Kyle,
PEace be upon you Wakas,
The reason 393 points out "before the Torah was sent down" is because the Torah changed the restrictions!
I have problems with that, there is NO CHANGE in the God's way.
We have to find a way to translate the words "torah", "israel", etc.
I think what brother Wakas means by Torah changing the restrictions is what was additionally restricted to Jews due to punishment. I do not think he means that Torah changed the original basic restrictions. However only he can explain what exactly he meant by that.
The God's way does not change, but The God can change specific restrictions
2106 We do not duplicate a sign, or make it forgotten, unless We bring one which is like it or even greater. Did you not know that God is capable of all things?
One example would be
2187 It has been made lawful for you during the night of fasting to approach your women sexually.
Regards,
Tanveer
-
PEACE, WAKAS,
- All the food was made lawful to the Children of Israelexcept what Israel forbade for himself before the Torah was sent down...It took me many attempts to grasp the meaning of the above statement, but now it is clear
It means whatever Israel forbade/restricted for himself was unlawful/restricted (also) for the CoI, and this was before the Torah was sent down. The part in red is a statement of fact/rule/law BUT it is being modified by the "illa" (except). Thus, the question is, what did Israel forbid for himself?
QUES Is Israel referring to the prophet, or, is Israel being used eponymously for the nation of Israel?
QUES Does the ayat actually say "himself" or "itself" (nafasa)? Omar, states it can mean both. Yusef Ali and Muhammad Asad, translates the ayat as follows
393 All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, except what Israel Made unlawful for itself, before the Law (of Moses) was revealed. Say "Bring ye the Law and study it, if ye be men of truth."
Yes, what did he forbid himself? I maintain that it cannot mean pig, because on what rational/Quranic grounds would pig be made haram? We must remember that, nothing by its creation, is fasiqun/rijisun/evil. We must also keep in mind that, Allah, per ayat 6146, makes it clear that an entire category of animals were made haram by Him---those with claws, hence, animals with claws ( the pig is not represented in this class/group of animals.) could not have been what Israel forbade itself or himself, because why would Allah make haram what is already haram? I take the position that, Israel, must refer to the nation of Israel, as it is not permissible for prophets to make something haram. Allah, makes haram and halal.
Well, its very likely he was a prophet , thus held the same restrictions as prior prophets, i.e. the ones we have in 'al quran'. Being a prophet means you are under direct guidance, and under such direction one does not forbid anything without authority (usually), thus it is safe to assume what he forbade was with authority.
I can agree with the above in the main, because the Messenger stated that, "he brought no new doctrine"--469. If the ayat is translated properly as "himself", then, it is possible that the prophet Israel, in making something haram on his own, erred in judgement. While in the capacity of prophet, a prophet could err, whereas, a prophet acting in the capacity of Messenger, could not err.
66.1 O Prophet! why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you; you seek to please your wives; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
661 Ya ayyuha annabiyyu lima tuharrimu ma ahalla Allahu laka tabtaghee mardata azwajika wallahu ghafoorun raheem.
In the above ayat, Allah, by using Yaa (O) is speaking directly to the Prophet. There is no yaa (O) preceding Israel in ayat 393, hence, further indicating that Israel may be referring to a nation and not an individual. The above ayat establishes that a prophet can err, however, if the Israel is a prophet in 393, then why didn't Allah correct him as He did the Last Prophet? In both cases, something was halal and then made haram. In addition, man cannot make something haram, only Allah makes haram
1059 Say "See ye what things Allah hath sent down to you for sustenance? Yet you hold haram some things thereof and (some things) halal." Say "Hath Allah indeed permitted you, or do ye invent (things) to attribute to Allah.
Nowhere, in Al-Quran, does Allah give permission for a prophet to declare something to be haram.
If the ayat is referring to a..."himself", then there is no reason to believe the COI, as a people, followed suit. Now, if they did, then, they followed the sunnah of a prophet. If this be the case, then, the so-called Muslims today, can make an argument for the The Last Prophets so-called sunnah to be followed.
Furthermore, the sign is negating a false statement/belief by the Jews, thus it will be truthful/correct, thus it is highly unlikely to be a personal restriction that Israel placed on himself and others. The Torah must have added some, as a punishment, which ties in nicely with 4160 & 6146. 4160 also shows an order to things 4160 Because of the wickedness from those who are Jews, We made forbidden to them the good things that were lawful to them; and for their deterring many from the path of God.
I agree.
For the Jews, some lawful/good things became forbidden. One must have guidance beforehand to know what was good/lawful, thus guidance on food was present prior to the additional restrictions.
I agree. As all food was halal for the COI, then, we know that no food was haram. In addition, per ayat 6146, Allah, tells mankind, exactly, what He made haram for the Jews to eat.
The reason 393 points out "before the Torah was sent down" is because the Torah changed the restrictions! 393 is referencing a point in time prior to this changing. The only restrictions we know of prior to the additions for the Jews are the ones in 'al quran' (already dead, running blood, meat of pig, dedicated to other than The God), thus this is what Israel followed, which would mean this has been the way, at the very least for prophets since Israel (and most likely has always been the way?). That is why the additions (made for the Jews) were rescinded/repealed in 'al quran' taking it back to the original/prior law.
No doubt, except that, the pig could never had been a haram item, as it was not represented in the category of animals made haram to Jews--those with claws, prior to Al-Quran. This is why ayat 6146, is the key to understanding the status of pig as food for mankind.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
peace Kyle,
Brother Tanveer answered your query nicely
I think what brother Wakas means by Torah changing the restrictions is what was additionally restricted to Jews due to punishment. I do not think he means that Torah changed the original basic restrictions.
Please re-consider your stance on "there is no change in The God's way" in an absolute sense. When The God says "way" are you assuming The God means every single law as well? Why cant it mean "way" as in rewards for the righteous, punishment for the unrighteous? That is God's way. Do not embellish on what is said, one needs solid proof before making a conclusion.
No doubt, except that, the pig could never had been a haram item, as it was not represented in the category of animals made haram to Jews--those with claws, prior to Al-Quran. This is why ayat 6146, is the key to understanding the status of pig as food for mankind.
6146 is linked to 6145 with a "wa" (and), if you wish to exclude that in your understanding, thats up to you.
Wakas
-
Peace all,
Please re-consider your stance on "there is no change in The God's way" in an absolute sense. When The God says "way" are you assuming The God means every single law as well? Why cant it mean "way" as in rewards for the righteous, punishment for the unrighteous? That is God's way. Do not embellish on what is said, one needs solid proof before making a conclusion.
Absolutely agree. We have evidence of changes in the quran as well as bro Tanveer posted. No change is taken in the broad sense just like 395
Say, "GOD has proclaimed the truth You shall follow Abraham's religion - monotheism. He never was an idolater."
The understanding that bro Tanveer posted first and then bro Wakas seems the most reasonable to date.
-
PM Because of the wickedness from those who are Jews, We made forbidden to them the good things that were lawful to them; and for their deterring many from the path of God.
You failed to notice 3 verses before 4160 were it say
4157 "And for claiming that they killed the Messiah... "
This means the extra food laws for the Jews INCLUDES punishment for what they did to Jesus or what they said they did to Jesus.
But this raises a serious problems because the Jews didn't receive any extra food laws after the time of Jesus.
This by itself is another Discrepancy
-
PM Because of the wickedness from those who are Jews, We made forbidden to them the good things that were lawful to them; and for their deterring many from the path of God.
You failed to notice 3 verses before 4160 were it say
4157 "And for claiming that they killed the Messiah... "
This means the extra food laws for the Jews INCLUDES punishment for what they did to Jesus or what they said they did to Jesus.
But this raises a serious problems because the Jews didn't receive any extra food laws after the time of Jesus.
This by itself is another Discrepancy
Yes, but we have no proof is about food.
See http//www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=586®ion=E1 -
PEACE, WAKAS, S. CARROT, MARIE & TANVEER,
6146 is linked to 6145 with a "wa" (and), if you wish to exclude that in your understanding, thats up to you
6145 Say I do not find in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden for an eater to eat of except that it be what has died of itself, or blood poured forth, or flesh of swine-- for that surely is unclean-- or that which is a transgression, other than (the name of) Allah having been invoked on it; but whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring nor exceeding the limit, then surely your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.
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.
I truly want to understand your P.O.V. so please explain, exactly, what the "wa", relative to food being made haram to the Jews, means to your argument that the pig is haram. Please don't give me links, I want you to explain this. A question I definitely need answered is is ayat 6146, referring to the Jews prior to Al-Quran being revealed or after?
The reason 393 points out "before the Torah was sent down" is because the Torah changed the restrictions! 393 is referencing a point in time prior to this changing.
What species of animals were haram ( I wish you and the others would stop using the the term "restriction" and use the "haram", if that is what you mean by restriction, thanks ) as food for the COI before the advent of Torah? What ayat, definitively, mentions this haram animal either in part or whole? I must remind you that, ayat 393 says nothing about Allah making any food/animal haram for the COI. The ayat says Israel made something haram, but you have made it not clear what he made haram nor, have you made it clear, whether Israel is referring to the prophet or is being used eponymously. The ayat uses the term nafsihi, which, apparently, can mean either "itself" or "himself". Yuself Ali and Asad Muhammad both use "itself". Which, definitively, is it? If the ayat is referring to a..."himself", then
-
there is no reason to believe the COI, as a people, followed suit.
-
if they did, then, they followed the sunnah of a prophet. If this be the case, then, the so-called Muslims today, can make an argument that, the The Last Prophet's so-called sunnah can be followed.
-
if the ayat is translated properly as "himself", then, it is possible that the prophet Israel, in making something haram on his own, erred in judgement. While in the capacity of prophet, a prophet could err, whereas, a prophet acting in the capacity of Messenger, could not err.
66.1 O Prophet! why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you; you seek to please your wives; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
661 Ya ayyuha annabiyyu lima tuharrimu ma ahalla Allahu laka tabtaghee mardata azwajika wallahu ghafoorun raheem.
In the above ayat, Allah, by using Yaa (O) is speaking directly to the Prophet. There is no yaa (O) preceding Israel in ayat 393, hence, further indicating that Israel may be referring to a nation and not an individual. The above ayat establishes that a prophet can err, however, if the Israel is a prophet in 393, then why didn't Allah correct him as He did the Last Prophet? In both cases, something was halal and then made haram. In addition, man cannot make something haram, only Allah makes haram
1059 Say "See ye what things Allah hath sent down to you for sustenance? Yet you hold haram some things thereof and (some things) halal." Say "Hath Allah indeed permitted you, or do ye invent (things) to attribute to Allah.
Nowhere, in Al-Quran, does Allah give permission for a prophet to declare something to be haram.
Wakas, I hope truly hope you and the others will address my above questions and assertions point by point, thanks.
Looking forward to your replies.
-
-
Peace Wakas, all,
Thanks for your last understanding about 393. You expressed exactly what I want to mean when I raised the question about CIO and the prophet Israel (393).
Just a detail, in 393 we are not told that Israel forbade for himself what the God made lawfull, contrary to the verse (661) where the prophet was warned
661 O Prophet! Would you prohibit something that Allah has made Lawful for you, even to please your wives? For, Allah is Absolver of (their) imperfections, Merciful.
- 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.
Our duty is also to forbid on our self what the God prohibited
- Fight those who do not believe in God or the Last Day, and they do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden, and they do not uphold the system of truth; from among the people who have been given the Scripture; until they pay the fine, willingly or unwillingly.
6145 is similar than 393,we can understand that all food is lawfull except what the God and His messenger forbade
6145.Say I do not find in what is inspired to me forbidden except that it be already dead, or blood, or the meat of pig, for it is foul; or what is corruptly dedicated to other than God. Whoever is forced without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.
Salam
-
PEACE, MARIE,
Just a detail, in 393 we are not told that Israel forbade for himself what the God made lawfull, contrary to the verse (661) where the prophet was warned
661 O Prophet! Would you prohibit something that Allah has made Lawful for you, even to please your wives? For, Allah is Absolver of (their) imperfections, Merciful.
- 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.
Our duty is also to forbid on our self what the God prohibited
I must disagree with you, Marie. The ayat reads
393 All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, except what Israel Made unlawful for itself, before the Law (of Moses) was revealed. Say "Bring ye the Law and study it, if ye be men of truth."
The ayat, clearly, states Israel made something haram which was lawful, just as the Prophet did. There is no mention of Allah making anything haram in ayat 393. Ayat 587, expressly, tells mankind not to make lawful things unlawful, hence, if Israel is a prophet, he definitely would not have made something haram which Allah did not, at least not consciously anyway. Again, ayat 393 does not state what was made haram, hence, we cannot extrapolate that it is referring to animal or part of an animal which was made haram. Do you agree?
-
Peace PB,
Could you please answer to the question I asked you here ?
PB, I would like to re-ask you a question that have already been asked to you, and which you have not already responded to.
-> Are dead meat (carrion), blood, and anything that has been dedicated to other than Allah permitted, or forbidden, to Children of Israel ?
If you answer it has been forbidden, does it not contradict with "All the food was made lawful to the Children of Israel " ( ?
Thanks in advance for your response to this clear question,
Peace
-
Peace PB,
Just a detail, in 393 we are not told that Israel forbade for himself what the God made lawfull, contrary to the verse (661) where the prophet was warned
661 O Prophet! Would you prohibit something that Allah has made Lawful for you, even to please your wives? For, Allah is Absolver of (their) imperfections, Merciful.
- 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.
Our duty is also to forbid on our self what the God prohibited
I must disagree with you, Marie. The ayat reads
393 All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, except what Israel Made unlawful for itself, before the Law (of Moses) was revealed. Say "Bring ye the Law and study it, if ye be men of truth."
The ayat, clearly, states Israel made something haram which was lawful, just as the Prophet did.
As I stated in this thread Banee isra-eel # Isra-eel (393, 1958 )
There is only two occurences of Isra-eel in the singular form in the Reading
-
Those are the ones whom God has blessed from amongst the prophets from the progeny of Adam, and those We carried with Noah, and from the progeny of Abraham and Israel, and from whom We have guided and chosen. When the revelations of the Almighty are recited to them, they fall down prostrating, and in tears.
-
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 (YOU) the Torah and recite it if you are truthful.
From 1958, it is obvious that Israel is a prophet like No? and Abraham. Feel free to reject it.
In the light of the Reading, The progeny/thurriyyat is specific to a person not to a nation.
I respect your view but it is useless to refute with arguments in the light of the Reading.The God always uses COI to speak about them and all verbs are conjugated in the plural form in the same way when the God uses the word Qawm (people), all verbs are also conjugated in the plural form.
For me there is no doubt that COI and Israel are two distinct things.
There is no mention of Allah making anything haram in ayat 393. Ayat 587, expressly, tells mankind not to make lawful things unlawful, hence, if Israel is a prophet, he definitely would not have made something haram which Allah did not, at least not consciously anyway. Again, ayat 393 does not state what was made haram, hence, we cannot extrapolate that it is referring to animal or part of an animal which was made haram. Do you agree?
I think you don't get really what it means neither by this ayat 393 nor my last post. I cannot force you to see the subtle difference between different statements in the Reading.
I repeat it like Israel (the prophet) Our duty is also to forbid on our self what the God and His mesenger prohibited (587).
Just an advice, please consider the whole Reading to get the big picture for each sentence and concept.
I don't wish to continue this debate.
Salam
-
Peace Marie,
I repeat it like Israel (the prophet) Our duty is also to forbid on our self what the God and His mesenger prohibited (587).
Very nicely put, I agree that should clear up the meaning of 'for himself' which I was confused about.
-
PEACE, /JM/
Could you please answer to the question I asked you here ?
PB, I would like to re-ask you a question that have already been asked to you, and which you have not already responded to.
-> Are dead meat (carrion), blood, and anything that has been dedicated to other than Allah permitted, or forbidden, to Children of Israel ?
If you answer it has been forbidden, does it not contradict with "All the food was made lawful to the Children of Israel " ( ?
Thanks in advance for your response to this clear question,
Peace
Carrion, can be any kind of dead animal specie, correct? Do you think at any time that, carrion, was created as food? Did Allah, by nature, create dead/carrion things, blood or ill-seeming flesh, as food...good or otherwise? Are things, dedicated to Allah, always food stuffs?
Hope this answers your question.
-
PEACE, MARIE,
Just an advice, please consider the whole Reading to get the big picture for each sentence and concept. I don't wish to continue this debate.
This is not a debate Marie, but a discussion in search of the truth. In pursuit of the what is truth, it is important that we do not violate ayats 733 and 1736, which is haram to do. To violate ayats 733 and 1736, among others, is to misguide oneself and possibly others
733 Say the things that my Lord hath indeed made haram are shameful deeds...and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge.
1736 And do not pursue/follow that of which you 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).
For the moment, for discussion sake, I will accept that, Israel, in 393, is referring to the Prophet Israel.
You still have not yet resolved the following dilemma. If you've answerd this question, then please provide the link.
PBM There is no mention of Allah making anything haram in ayat 393. Ayat 587, expressly, tells mankind not to make lawful things unlawful, hence, if Israel is a prophet, he definitely would not have made something haram which Allah did not, at least not consciously anyway. Again, ayat 393 does not state what was made haram, hence, we cannot extrapolate that it is referring to animal or part of an animal which was made haram. Do you agree?
I think you don't get really what it means neither by this ayat 393 nor my last post. I cannot force you to see the subtle difference between different statements in the Reading.
I may not get it and that is why, as an inviter to Al-Islam, you are obligated to know what you are talking and then be able to articulate it. This goes for me as well. I am no stranger to subtlety, in fact, I am a fan of it
I repeat it like Israel (the prophet) Our duty is also to forbid on our self what the God and His mesenger prohibited (587).
Two things
-
Was the Prophet Israel...a Messenger? If not, then, Allah, didn't authorize him to make any halal food haram.
-
The Messengers, did not make anything haram, only Allah makes haram. It is the...Message, which the Messenger brings, which makes things haram and not the Messenger himself. The Message...are the words of Allah and not the words of the Messenger. Subtle, but true.
393 All food was lawful to the children of Israel except that which Israel had forbidden to himself, before the Taurat was revealed. Say Bring then the Taurat and read it, if you are truthful.
587 O you who believe! do not forbid (yourselves) the good things which Allah has made lawful for you and do not exceed the limits; surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
Am I reading these ayats clearly?! It appears that, per ayat 587, Israel, in ayat 393, made some food or another, haram, which Allah didn't. All food was halal to the COI, then, Israel, made one or more halal foods...haram. As I've said repeatedly, Allah, did not give him permission do this, no more than He gave the Last Prophet permission to make something haram.
- By what authority did Israel make a halal food haram? Did Allah tell him to do that? Please provide the ayat/proof.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
