Is Swine Hallal
-
SaLaM Tay
Thus far, I remain undecided. I'm sorry if that bothers you or anyone else.
On the contrary brother, i have completel respect for you JUST for doing that. A person should be completely sure of something before he/she beleives and make it a part of his/her belief. Im completely supportive this. BUT, if you are asking that kind of proof, then you simply wont get it. And by that logic alone, priest's already ridiculous argument goes up in smoke.
But, lets work with what we have right here, right now. Lets take the arabic language right now. Lets be completely objective here.
Khanzeer means pig. I know this coz I know arabic. Anyone else who speaks arabic will tell you the same.
Khanzeer means pig in Urdu too. Infact, its a swear word in Urdu. My parents are from Pakistan and i speak Urdu too.We have two lanuages currently being spoken which say Khanzeer means Pig.
Now lets put that aside. Let look at the work done by the other translators. At the moments, yaqb.org has 14 translations. All of them agree on Khanzeer meaning pig. And these people didnt just get up one day and started translating the Quran. They have studied the language. Studied the Quran. So lets give them the credit for it.
Again, lets put that aside. Now Quran says refer to the previous scripture when in doubt. Lets see what the other scriptures have to say.
Torah Levicitus says pig is forbidden
Bible Deutronomy says pig is forbidden.I dont have my bible with me right, otherwise i would quote you the verses.
Lets see what Abdul Mannan said about it
Main Entry KHANIZA compound word comprised of khinz-bad and ara- I see it bad; to stink; to be evil; to be bad; dirty; piggy; pig/swine/hog; proud; greedy; stubborn, obstinate, stupidly perverse. The Dictionary of the Holy Quran, by Abdul Mannan Omar, pg. 166
Even Abdul Manaan, the same translator that bomkei is referring to, agrees that pig is one the possible meaning of the word Khanzeer.
So now we have 2 currently spoken languages who confirm Khanzeer means pig. We have the people who are translating the Quran and who study Quran's language confirming Khanzeer means pig. We have the Bible and the Torah saying pig is forbidden. Even Abdul Manaan supports that. Lane Lexicon dictionary also says Khanzeer means pig.
Now brother, i ask you, what do you say to the above?
-
PEACE, TAY,
PBM The grammar argument which some have raised, is based upon the notions of grammar established by men. No rules of supposed grammar, can overide clear ayats.
I hear your argument, but I'm not convinced that the grammar is not important so long as it is consistent within the Qur'an itself. The method of tasreef is the only true criterion since the Qur'an is surely the only true criterion....With all due respect, you have not overcome the grammatical contradiction. You've only tossed it aside calling those who have brought it to our attention ill-equipped to understand the grammar, yet we have no alternative understanding. I wish you to overcome this contradiction by finding, within the Qur'an, another occurrence of a grammatical error or inconsistency. This would certainly seal the deal.
You must ask yourself this question...are there any contradictions/discrepancies in Al-Quran? If the grammar can contradict the meaning of an ayat, then, that constitutes a discrepancy/contradiction. One of the questions before us is, is the flesh of pig, by nature, that is, by its creation, fasiqun/rijsun? Well, ayat 327, precludes any such notion of anything, by its created nature, being fasiqun/rijsun
327 Who made good/ahsana everything that He has created, and He began the creation of man from dust.
6145 Say "I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine,- for it is an abomination/rijsun - or, what is impious, (meat) on which a name has been invoked, other than Allah's". But (even so), if a person is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- thy Lord is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
There is no contradiction for me to overcome. I ask you, is the pig one of the created things? If so, then the pig, by nature, cannot be fasiqun/rijsun, otherwise, the above two ayats directly contradict. Again I ask...how can the grammar of Al-Quran contradict the meaning of an ayat of Al-Quran?
Looking forward to your reply.
-
ALL Prophets are Messengers, can't you read your own quran.
If you are correct, then, post the ayat where Allah says that Israel was a Messenger, that's all you have to do. Allah, directly names Lut, Musa, Jesus, Muhammad, among others, as Messengers. Seeing how you can read Al-Quran better than me, you should have no problem then posting the ayat where Israel is labelled a Messenger.
When you admitt Israel is a Prophet, you are also admitting he is a Messeger because according to your Quran, every "Nabi" is a "Rasoul" but not every "Rasoul" is a "Nabi".
As with everyhing else, you have this backwards as well. If every nabi is a Messenger, as you claim, then, why isn't Ibrahim, as with Israel, labelled Messengers? Now, on the other hand, every Messenger named is also labelled a prophet
4157 And their saying Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the Messenger of Allah.
1930 He said Surely I am a servant of Allah; He has given me the Book and made me a prophet;
7157 Those who follow the Messenger-Prophet (Muhammad), the Ummi, whom they find written down with them in the Taurat and the Injeel (who) enjoins them good and forbids them evil, and makes lawful to them the good things and makes unlawful to them impure things, and removes from them their burden and the shackles which were upon them; so (as for) those who believe in him and honor him and help him, and follow the light which has been sent down with him, these it is that are the successful.
1941 And mention Ibrahim in the Book; surely he was a truthful man, a prophet.
1949 So when he withdrew from them and what they worshipped besides Allah, We gave to him Ishaq and Yaqoub, and each one of them We made a prophet.
1951 And mention Musa in the Book; surely he was one purified, and he was a Messenger, a prophet.
1953 And We gave to him out of Our mercy his brother Haroun a prophet.
1954 And mention Ismail in the Book; surely he was truthful in (his) promise, and he was a Messenger, a prophet.
1956 And mention Idris in the Book; surely he was a truthful man, a prophet,
"The people used to be one community when God sent THE PROPHETS as bearers of good news, as well as warners. HE SENT DOWN WITH THEM THE SCRIPTURE, bearing the truth, to judge among the people in their disputes" 2213
You admitted that Israel is a Prophet and ALL prophets comes with the scripture.
Yes, I admit that Israel is a prophet, but not a rasul/Messenger. I've proven my assertion, however, you haven't proven yours. Now, I'm not going to go into depth about the difference between a prophet and a messenger-prophet, however, I will tell you this, as I told Marie,...Messengers..cannot err, however, prophets can.
I'm supprised you said Israel was ONLY a Prophet and NOT a Messenger. You've been too busy eating Pork instead of ready your quran
I'm surprised that you aren't tired of embarrassing yourself.
-
PEACE, TAY,
4160 Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah's way.
For the Jews, prior to their iniquity, nothing was haram to them, relative, to food. The following ayat tell us what halal things were made haram for them. The things being made haram to them are based on the Jews having transgressed and not because the haram things were, by nature, fasiqun/rijsun
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.
The above species of animals and parts of animals, as well as, all species of animals, prior to the Jews transgressions, would have had to have been halal as food, otherwise, they could not have been made haram, correct?
16118 And for those who were Jews We prohibited what We have related to you already, and We did them no injustice, but they were unjust to themselves.
This ayat, tells us to refer to what was made haram for the Jews. Well, unless I'm incorrect, Al-Quran, and specifically ayat 6146, tell us what was made haram for the Jews, and it concerns food.
350 '(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
Ayat 350, can only be referring to ayat 6146, because only it, tell us exactly what was made haram to the Jews, hence, Jesus, made either animals with claws halal or the fat of sheep and oxen halal. Jesus, when he says he is a Sign from Allah , that was the authority given to him by Allah, to make what was previously haram to the Jews, halal.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
PEACE, S. CARROT,
These questions have been answered on the swine thread multiple times. Why don't you keep them to that thread then instead of branching out into a discussion where we are talking about the finer points of what some specific terms mean that have nothing to do with this infernal animal?!? Thats what your pork is isn't it? Is pig halal...it's amazing how all threads lead to this...
How cannot it not lead to this?
A. Both you and Marie, if I am not mistaken, per ayat 393, state that the prophet Israel made something haram for himself. There is no evidence that what he imposed upon himself was also imposed on the COI.
Like Marie said, ponder upon the verses...your questions have been answered on the swine thread.
Come on, will you. If you know the answer, why don't you simply state it here? I'm not going to wade through a bunch of posts looking for what either of you think is answer. If you or Marie have the answer to this, then, simply post it here. The truth is, neither of you, have any proof at all as to whether or not what Israel imposed upon himself devolved on the COI, now do you? Why can't either of you simply admit that, what's the problem?
B. If other species of animal for food or parts of particular species of animals for food , where made haram to the Jews outside of what is mentioned in ayat 6146, well, neither you nor I not anyone else, for a certainty, can determine what they were. What we do know for a certainty is that ayat 6146 names the haram things for food and it wasn't because these foodstuffs were haram due to their being fasiiqun/rijisun by their created nature, but as punishment for the transgressions of the Jews.
Again the same ole?!? Yes we can determine them, remember the and on the swine thread?
Come on, stop. Neither you nor Marie, to date, have told us what specie of animal for food, outside of ayat 6146, was made haram to the COI or Jews. If you know, which I doubt you do, then, simply post the ayat right here. No excuses.
C. Not so. Ayat 6146, tells us what Allah made haram to the Jews. The following ayat tells us that Jews was allowed to make part of what was haram to them, halal again 350 '(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
To phrase more clearly in case you didn't get it, please let us know what Jesus uses this authority on in any ayat in the quran so you can stop conjecturing? Does he use it on food? Does he use it on other restrictions? Please post the ayat that tells us what he used it on. Thanks. Remember the same response on the swine thread?
4160 Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah's way.
For the Jews, prior to their iniquity, nothing was haram to them, relative, to food. The following ayat tell us what halal things were made haram for them. The things being made haram to them are based on the Jews having transgressed and not because the haram things were, by nature, fasiqun/rijsun
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.
The above species of animals and parts of animals, as well as, all species of animals, prior to the Jews transgressions, would have had to have been halal as food, otherwise, they could not have been made haram, correct?
16118 And for those who were Jews We prohibited what We have related to you already, and We did them no injustice, but they were unjust to themselves.
This ayat, tells us to refer to what was made haram for the Jews. Well, unless I'm incorrect, Al-Quran, and specifically ayat 6146, tell us what was made haram for the Jews, and it concerns food.
350 '(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
Ayat 350, can only be referring to ayat 6146, because only it, tell us exactly what was made haram to the Jews, hence, Jesus, made either animals with claws halal or the fat of sheep and oxen halal. Jesus, when he says he is a Sign from Allah , that was the authority given to him by Allah, to make what was previously haram to the Jews, halal.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
1951 And mention Musa in the Book; surely he was one purified, and he was a Messenger, a prophet.
You just proved my point... It says Messenger - Prophet NOT Prophet - Messenger.
If you THINK ALL Messengers are Prophet than "a prophet" 195 is redundent and not required.
And make mention in the Scripture of Abraham. Lo! he was a saint, a prophet.
In 1941 it says Saint - Prophet NOT Prophet - Saint.... The Saint come first because Not ALL Saints are Prophets.
The same applies with Messenger - Prophet ... the word Messenger comes fist because not ALL Messenger are Prophets but ALL Prophets are Messengers
-
Peace all,
327 Who made good/ahasana ...everything that He has created, and He began the creation of man from dust.
Your position contradicts the ayat where Allah says that, He created ALL things ahsana--good. The Dict. of the Holy Quran, pg. 124.
The word used in 327 is "ahsana", not "hasanan" or "hasanatun".
327 (transliteration) Allathee AHSANA kulla shay-in khalaqahu wabadaa khalqa al-insani min teenin
327 The One who perfected everything He created and He began the creation of the human from mud.
"ahsana" in 327 is a verb, not an adjective or noun.
It means did excellently, meaning form and craftsmanship, not whether it is good or bad by nature. It means The God created all things excellently.
"ahsana" does not mean "good", but it means "he did good", "he did excellently", "he bettered", "he perfected".
AHSANA He did good; did excellently; was very kind (Dictionary of Holy Quran by Abdul Mannan Omar)
Translating 327 as "He who made ahsana everything he created" would be grammatically wrong and would mean "He who made made excellently everything He created", which would be absurd.
If The God meant to say that He created everything good by nature, the arabic would have been
Allathee khalaqahu kulla shay-in HASANAN...... meaning "He who created everything good".
The original arabic of 327 does not say that, but says
Allathee AHSANA kulla shay-in khalaqahu....... meaning "He perfected/bettered/made excellently everything He created"
-
Peace all,
When confronted with a logical and reasonable argument to which PB has no response/refutation, he comes up with the following
Ahh, more sleight of hand and canards, Tanveer.
(Sept 15, 2005 245 pm)Your analysis is a canard and sleight of hand.
(Sept 11, 2005, 310 am)This response is eerily similar to the response of the disbelievers/rejecters when confronted with the clear revelations
467 And when Our clear revelations are recited to them, those who rejected said of the truth that came to them "This is evidently magic!"
3444 And when Our clear revelations were recited to them, they said "This is but a man who wants to turn you away from what your parents were worshiping." And they also said "This is nothing but a fabricated lie." And those who disbelieved say of the truth when it has come to them "This is nothing but evident magic!"
-
Peace PB,
How cannot it not lead to this?
There are other things in this world and in the quran than PIGS all the time.
Come on, will you. If you know the answer, why don't you simply state it here? I'm not going to wade through a bunch of posts looking for what either of you think is answer. If you or Marie have the answer to this, then, simply post it here. The truth is, neither of you, have any proof at all as to whether or not what Israel imposed upon himself devolved on the COI, now do you? Why can't either of you simply admit that, what's the problem?
I'm sorry to say that your mindset is not very inclined to research. You don't have the patience or the inclination. The answers have been posted, have the courtesy to READ.
Come on, stop. Neither you nor Marie, to date, have told us what specie of animal for food, outside of ayat 6146, was made haram to the COI or Jews. If you know, which I doubt you do, then, simply post the ayat right here. No excuses.
Remember the AND? It's actually useless posting to you because you feign ignorance of something that has been repeated here thousands of times.
Ayat 350, can only be referring to ayat 6146, because only it, tell us exactly what was made haram to the Jews, hence, Jesus, made either animals with claws halal or the fat of sheep and oxen halal. Jesus, when he says he is a Sign from Allah , that was the authority given to him by Allah, to make what was previously haram to the Jews, halal.
Please post the ayat where Jesus uses this authority and on WHAT. Unless you can do that, YOU are only conjecturing. Thanks.
For everyone else, move along people, there's nothing new to see here.
-
Peace Jaxal and Priest,
Jaxal, you've done well to establish that "khanzir" means pig to the majority. I accept this. I speak Arabic too, and we've always called pig "khanzir".
However, this is not what I have issue with. What I have issue with is what "khanzir" meant in the 7th century, and what proof exists that the pig is inherently foul.
You stated
BUT, if you are asking that kind of proof, then you simply wont get it.
If there is no evidence that pork is an animal unfit for consumption, then we have to start looking in other directions.
Priest, you stated
You must ask yourself this question...are there any contradictions/discrepancies in Al-Quran? If the grammar can contradict the meaning of an ayat, then, that constitutes a discrepancy/contradiction.
Exactly!! That's what I'm saying brother. Something has to be resolved to eliminate the apparent discrepancy/contradiction. If we accept your understanding, then we have to resolve the grammar issue. We can't just ignore it. And if we accept that "khanzir" means pig, then we have to prove that the animal is inherently foul and then deal with ayah 327, among others.
I hope you understand me. Both views have obstacles and neither obstacle has been overcome.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Tay,
And if we accept that "khanzir" means pig, then we have to prove that the animal is inherently foul and then deal with ayah 327, among others.
I hope you understand me. Both views have obstacles and neither obstacle has been overcome.
Firstly, ayah 327 has been mistranslated by PB. You know Arabic so you will be able to understand that. I will appreciate your comments on my post on the meaning of 327 at the following link
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54538#54538
Secondly, if lahma alkhinzeerin means ill seeming/bad/dirty/rotten meat, that will make alkhinzeerin an adjective of lahma, and then for that phrase to be followed by "rijsun" which is another adjective with similar meaning as alkhinzeerin would be redundant. EVERYONE knows through common sense that ill seeming/bad/dirty/rotten meat is foul. Please show ANY other instance in Al-Qur'aan where a noun is immediately followed by 2 adjectives and both adjectives mean the same. Rules of tasreef demand that.
Thirdly, if lahma alkhinzeerin means ill seeming/bad/dirty/rotten meat, then The God allows us to eat it when we are forced due to need. Consumption of ill seeming/bad/dirty/rotten meat will cause one to get violently sick with vomiting, nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, fever and dehydration in a matter of hours and will most likely kill in a few days. You think that The God will allow us to eat such a toxic thing when we are forced due to starvation which will end up making us violently sick and kill us more violently and sooner than starvation would? Is that the mercy of a Merciful God ? shock nope
You're asking me to prove a negative? Can you prove that purple unicorns don't exist?
Ask me to prove that cigarettes are not foul and I'd be hard pressed. Emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease, can all be directly correlated with smoking cigarettes.
But pork is another story.
You can always design a study to prove or disprove a negative. It is called null hypothesis testing; please see the following link for information on hypothesis testing and null hypothesis, and alternative hypothesis
http//www.stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/hypothesis_testing.html#hypothtest
Pork consumption has been DIRECTLY CORRELATED with incidence of cirrhosis, liver cancer, multiple sclerosis and vascular disease by SCIENTIFIC STUDIES published in REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS. Now if you want to turn a blind eye to that scientific evidence then that is your choice.
A scientific study can be performed by a Hislamic, Hindu, Christian, Jew, and that does not make any difference as long as it meets the stringent criteria for a scientifically valid and acceptable study. When a study is published in a reputable scientific journal, it has to meet the strict criteria.
Most of the recent scientific studies on different things have been conducted by non-muslims, so does that mean we reject the results of all those studies just because they were done by non-muslims ? That will be absurd.
Regards,
Tanveer
-
TANVEER,
Peace all,
327 Who made good/ahasana ...everything that He has created, and He began the creation of man from dust.
Your position contradicts the ayat where Allah says that, He created ALL things ahsana--good. The Dict. of the Holy Quran, pg. 124.
The word used in 327 is "ahsana", not "hasanan" or "hasanatun".
327 (transliteration) Allathee AHSANA kulla shay-in khalaqahu wabadaa khalqa al-insani min teenin
327 The One who perfected everything He created and He began the creation of the human from mud.
"ahsana" in 327 is a verb, not an adjective or noun.
It means did excellently, meaning form and craftsmanship, not whether it is good or bad by nature. It means The God created all things excellently.
"ahsana" does not mean "good", but it means "he did good", "he did excellently", "he bettered", "he perfected".
AHSANA He did good; did excellently; was very kind (Dictionary of Holy Quran by Abdul Mannan Omar)
Translating 327 as "He who made ahsana everything he created" would be grammatically wrong and would mean "He who made made excellently everything He created", which would be absurd.
If The God meant to say that He created everything good by nature, the arabic would have been
Allathee khalaqahu kulla shay-in HASANAN...... meaning "He who created everything good".
The original arabic of 327 does not say that, but says
Allathee AHSANA kulla shay-in khalaqahu....... meaning "He perfected/bettered/made excellently everything He created"
Hmmm...o.k., let's see. You said
The original arabic of 327 does not say that, but says
Allathee AHSANA kulla shay-in khalaqahu....... meaning "He perfected/bettered/made excellently everything He created
Consider part of the folowing ayat
53...This day have I perfected/akmaltu your religion for you...
Main Entry KAMALA/AKMALTU to be complete, whole, perfect/perfected. TDOTHQ, Omar, pg. 497
If the proper translation for ahsana is--"perfect", as you say it is, why, then, was not some derivitive of kamala used in 327? Neither Omar nor Wehr, uses the word perfect for hasana. Both, however, do use "good" relative to hasana.
Anyway, let's not quibble.
Now, lets define the English terms "perfect", "excellent" and "good" and let's see if they support my position or yours.
Main Entry PERFECT being entirely without fault or defect flawless.
Now, if something is fasiqun/rijsun by nature, then, it has faults, hence, it cannot be perfect/flawless, that is contradiction. What did Allah, by nature, create imperfectly? How can a perfect God, create an imperfection? Did Allah, by nature, create a perfect rotting flesh or perfect road kill? What perfect imperfection did He create? Did He create perfect rijsun pig flesh?
Main Entry EXCELLENT of the highest quality.
Did Allah, by nature, make something fasiqun/rijsun of the highest quality? Did Allah, create the highest quality rotting flesh or the highest quality foul pig flesh?
Main Entry GOOD suitable fit free from injury or disease that can be relied on wholesome.
What, by nature, did Allah create in an injured or diseased state? Now, if you are going to say..."flesh of pigs", well, if it is that that was only made known to man, for a certitude, posterior to advent of Al-Quran. Ayat 6156, proves beyond any shadow of doubt that, only the animals with claws, of which the pig isn't one, was haram to the Jews. They were not made haram because they were by nature fasiqun/rijsun, but as a punishment. Hence, you have absolutely no proof that the pig was ever haram to mankind, ostensibly anyway, before Al-Quran. Now, if the flesh of pig was/is by nature fasiqun/rijisun, then, 1. Allah, would not have allowed mankind from day one to eat it, and 2. He would contradict Himself at ayat 327.
What other sleight of hand trick will you perform next? wink Looking forward to it anyway. D
-
SaLaM Tay
What I have issue with is what "khanzir" meant in the 7th century, and what proof exists that the pig is inherently foul.
I will be honest with you brother, i cant bring you proof with 7th century. No one can. But as far as pig being inherently foul, brother, every site that ive visited while researching pigs, one thing is always said. Pigs will eat ANYTHING including HUMAN EXCREMENT. I dont know who, but someone tried to say that well chickens are being fed shit. But this is different, pig, will have a natural tendency to eat human excrement. MEaning, they cant differentiate it between vegetables and human excrement.
-
Salam Jaxal,
Pigs will eat ANYTHING including HUMAN EXCREMENT. I dont know who, but someone tried to say that well chickens are being fed s***. But this is different, pig, will have a natural tendency to eat human excrement. MEaning, they cant differentiate it between vegetables and human excrement.
That?s pure baloney. Are pigs farmed and fed human shit? Do you really believe that humans shit around pigs so that the pigs can eat them? Environmental, health, farming, breeding, raising issues and FDA certifications simply don?t exist in your dreamland. What nonsense?
Did you know that manure (animal dung) is used in fertilizing soil and gardening? Does that mean all flowers, fruits, vegetables become ?haram?? LOL!!!
-
PEACE, TAY,
TANVEER, states
Thirdly, if lahma alkhinzeerin means ill seeming/bad/dirty/rotten meat, then The God allows us to eat it when we are forced due to need. Consumption of ill seeming/bad/dirty/rotten meat will cause one to get violently sick with vomiting, nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, fever and dehydration in a matter of hours and will most likely kill in a few days. You think that The God will allow us to eat such a toxic thing when we are forced due to starvation which will end up making us violently sick and kill us more violently and sooner than starvation would? Is that the mercy of a Merciful God ? shock nope
-
Ill-seeming flesh, while can cause the things Tanveer cites above, isn't always the case. Many homeless/destitute people around the world, out of necessity, have had to eat ill-seeming foods, whether they be flesh or produce. Ill-seeming flesh is doubtful as food, hence, one should avoid what is doubtful, especially, where one's health may be put at risk.
-
Tanveer, laments "how can The God will allow us to eat such a toxic thing when we are forced due to starvation which will end up making us violently sick and kill us more violently and sooner than starvation would?" I find this very amusing, because time and again, I've asked him, Marie, S. Carrot that, if the flesh of pig is as he describes above, why, then, did not Allah make it haram from day one? If Tanveer and the others are going to maintain that lahma khinzerin is the..."flesh of pigs" and is foul/toxic/life threatening by nature, well, this was only made known to man, for a certitude, posterior to advent of Al-Quran. Ayat 6146, proves beyond any shadow of doubt that, only the animals with claws, of which the pig isn't one, was haram to the Jews. They were not made haram because they were by nature fasiqun/rijsun, but as a punishment. Hence, he and the others, have absolutely no proof that the pig was ever haram to mankind, ostensibly anyway, before Al-Quran. Now, if the flesh of pig was/is by nature fasiqun/rijisun, then, A. Allah, would not have allowed mankind from day one to eat it, and B. He would contradict Himself at ayat 327.
Pork consumption has been DIRECTLY CORRELATED with incidence of cirrhosis, liver cancer, multiple sclerosis and vascular disease by SCIENTIFIC STUDIES published in REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS. Now if you want to turn a blind eye to that scientific evidence then that is your choice.
Main Entry CORRELATE either of two things so related that one directly implies or is complementary to the other.
Main Entry IMPLY 2 to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement to contain potentially to express indirectly.
As you can see, correlations are implications and not certitudes of anything. Correlations and implications, are OPINIONS/CONJECTURES and not knowledge
Main Entry OPINION belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.
Main Entry IMPRESSION a vague idea in which some confidence is placed.
Main Entry POSITIVE not speculative incontestable independent of changing circumstances.
Main Entry KNOW to be certain of.
Main Entry CERTAIN known or proved to be true indisputable, dependable, reliable.
Main Entry KNOWLEDGE the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association.
Main Entry FACT the quality of being actual something that has actual existence a piece of information presented as having objective reality- in fact in truth.
Main Entry ACTUAL existing in fact or reality not false or apparent.
Main EntryTRUTH the state of being the case fact the body of real things, events, and facts actuality.
Allah says
- Or have they taken for worship (other) gods besides him? Say, "Bring your convincing proof this is the Message of those with me and the Message of those before me." But most of them know not the Truth, and so turn away.
You see, Tanveer?...Allah says to bring convincing proof NOT correlations and implications. Good deal. wink
Tay, how many people were grammaticians at the time Al-Quran was first revealed? How many people today are grammaticians? Does one have to know grammar before one can read, understand and follow the Guidance? I don't know about you and the others, but when I first began to read, I was not taught grammar, I was taught vocabulary and meanings of words and concepts. Now, will notions of grammar take precedence over the meanings of words and concepts or will the meanings of words and concepts take precedence over the notions of grammar?
Looking forward to your reply.
-
-
1951 And mention Musa in the Book; surely he was one purified, and he was a Messenger, a prophet.
You just proved my point... It says Messenger - Prophet NOT Prophet - Messenger.
If you THINK ALL Messengers are Prophet than "a prophet" 195 is redundent and not required.
And make mention in the Scripture of Abraham. Lo! he was a saint, a prophet.
In 1941 it says Saint - Prophet NOT Prophet - Saint.... The Saint come first because Not ALL Saints are Prophets.
The same applies with Messenger - Prophet ... the word Messenger comes fist because not ALL Messenger are Prophets but ALL Prophets are Messengers
Albion, if you are going to insist on behaving like Jaxal, I will not respond to you.
I have not made any point for you, this is delusional thinking on your part. Muhammad, was both Messenger and Prophet, as was Jesus. Allah, names some of those who held both titles and named some who only held the title prophet. Israel, was not given the title Messenger/rasul. If you cannot get these basic facts or simply won't accept them, well, that is your problem.
-
PEACE, DANISH,
Salam Jaxal,
Pigs will eat ANYTHING including HUMAN EXCREMENT. I dont know who, but someone tried to say that well chickens are being fed s***. But this is different, pig, will have a natural tendency to eat human excrement. MEaning, they cant differentiate it between vegetables and human excrement.
That?s pure baloney. Are pigs farmed and fed human s***? Do you really believe that humans s*** around pigs so that the pigs can eat them? Environmental, health, farming, breeding, raising issues and FDA certifications simply don?t exist in your dreamland. What nonsense?
Did you know that manure (animal dung) is used in fertilizing soil and gardening? Does that mean all flowers, fruits, vegetables become ?haram?? LOL!!!
LOL!! You are the best! D LOL!!
-
PEACE, S. CARROT,
Peace PB,
How cannot it not lead to this?
There are other things in this world and in the quran than PIGS all the time.
Hmmm..like chicks? I agree! D
Come on, will you. If you know the answer, why don't you simply state it here? I'm not going to wade through a bunch of posts looking for what either of you think is answer. If you or Marie have the answer to this, then, simply post it here. The truth is, neither of you, have any proof at all as to whether or not what Israel imposed upon himself devolved on the COI, now do you? Why can't either of you simply admit that, what's the problem?
I'm sorry to say that your mindset is not very inclined to research. You don't have the patience or the inclination. The answers have been posted, have the courtesy to READ.
I don't liken wading through a bunch of your posts as doing...research. Anyway, if you had the answer to my question, you would have immediately stated and just shut me up. You don't have the answer, SC, so, why not just free your soul from its torment and just admit that, huh?
Come on, stop. Neither you nor Marie, to date, have told us what specie of animal for food, outside of ayat 6146, was made haram to the COI or Jews. If you know, which I doubt you do, then, simply post the ayat right here. No excuses.
Remember the AND? It's actually useless posting to you because you feign ignorance of something that has been repeated here thousands of times.
WOW!! brilliant reply. You've totally caught me off guard! Just admit that you don't have the answers SC and stop pretending.
Ayat 350, can only be referring to ayat 6146, because only it, tell us exactly what was made haram to the Jews, hence, Jesus, made either animals with claws halal or the fat of sheep and oxen halal. Jesus, when he says he is a Sign from Allah , that was the authority given to him by Allah, to make what was previously haram to the Jews, halal.
Please post the ayat where Jesus uses this authority and on WHAT. Unless you can do that, YOU are only conjecturing. Thanks.
Allah, does not tell us what He authorized Jesus to make lawful again, however, we do know that he told him to something, previously haram, halal again. This we do know. We also know that, if one of those things, by nature, was haram, then, it could not be made halal. We also know that, before it was made haram it was halal. Poof! there goes the by nature fasiqun/rijsun superstition.
For everyone else, move along people, there's nothing new to see here.
Exactly! Unfortunately, you are still evading and pretending.
-
Peace Tanveer,
Firstly, ayah 327 has been mistranslated by PB. You know Arabic so you will be able to understand that. I will appreciate your comments on my post on the meaning of 327 at the following link
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54538#54538
It is not mistranslated by PB but misunderstood by you and some others.
Secondly, if lahma alkhinzeerin means ill seeming/bad/dirty/rotten meat, that will make alkhinzeerin an adjective of lahma, and then for that phrase to be followed by "rijsun" which is another adjective with similar meaning as alkhinzeerin would be redundant. EVERYONE knows through common sense that ill seeming/bad/dirty/rotten meat is foul. Please show ANY other instance in Al-Qur'aan where a noun is immediately followed by 2 adjectives and both adjectives mean the same. Rules of tasreef demand that.
Wrong again. The 2 adjectives (khinzeeri and rijsun) are NOT immediately followed by lahma but by seperation. Study the verse again. Thus your insistence on 2 adjectives followed by a noun not to be found anywhere in the Quran becomes superfluous.
Thirdly, if lahma alkhinzeerin means ill seeming/bad/dirty/rotten meat, then The God allows us to eat it when we are forced due to need. Consumption of ill seeming/bad/dirty/rotten meat will cause one to get violently sick with vomiting, nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, fever and dehydration in a matter of hours and will most likely kill in a few days. You think that The God will allow us to eat such a toxic thing when we are forced due to starvation which will end up making us violently sick and kill us more violently and sooner than starvation would? Is that the mercy of a Merciful God ? shock nope
The sentence in bold above, by your own admittance, is why its restricted, pig's meat is not. shock nope
Pork consumption has been DIRECTLY CORRELATED with incidence of cirrhosis, liver cancer, multiple sclerosis and vascular disease by SCIENTIFIC STUDIES published in REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS. Now if you want to turn a blind eye to that scientific evidence then that is your choice.
It has already been refuted, debunked and beaten up. All such diseases mentioned by you are NOT specific to pig's meat only and neither are they proven nor concluded by scientific studies. No need to regurgitate and bring about baseless theories.