Is Swine Hallal

Elena

Peace everyone,

how do you explain the fact that millions of, for instance, Spaniards eat pork and still there are Spaniards on the Earth surface?

Of course I think that eating pork is bad, as I think of eating every meat, but not as bad as it is being said here, maybe the book means "don't eat fat"? If, there was no problem for anybody since we all know that fat and the other things discouraged in the book, intoxicants, are bad for humans.

Edit it seems I posted at the same time than Mz357,

unknownuser

TANVEER,

According to 327, The God created everything excellently, meaning the form and craftsmanship. A thing could be made excellently but may not be good for some function. Human analogy would be for example a common car, which could be made excellently but is not good for travelling over water or flying through air.

Your analogy fails. The car, simply because it cannot travel over water or fly, is not, by its creation, fasiqun/rijsun/haram. For it, travelling over water or flying, is not tayyib. Your argument though is out of gas, but keep trying.

Similarly a pig is made excellently by The God, with excellent physiology, anatomy, biochemical reactions, excellent nervous system, digestive system, cardiopulmonary system etc., but is not good for human consumption. The God has "ahsana" all creation, does not mean that all creation is "tayyib" for humans, or that a certain creation cannot be "rijsun" for humans.

Well, you are beginning to use other terminology here. There are many things in creation that, while they are not haram, are certainly not "tayyib" for human comsumption, nor, are they by their created natures, fasiqun/rijsun. Simply because something is not tayyib for consumption does not automatically make it haram/rijsun.

At least you are beginning to back away and free yourself from the notion that the pig isn't an excellent/good creation. You do, however, continue to contradict this budding understanding when you refer to its flesh being, by nature, rijsun. You do see the contradiction, yes?

If all creation is good as per PB's misinterpretation, then ill seeming/bad/dirty/rotten meat also has to be good, but then that would contradict 6145 where even if lahma khinzeerin means ill seeming meat, it is still called "rijsun". According to PB's misinterpretation, ALL creation is good, so NOTHING can be "rijsun", but The God calls a few things "rijsun" which would be a contradiction. Another GRAVE contradiction created by PB's misinterpretation.

You continue to miss the point. Ill-seeming meat is not a species of fauna or flora. Ill-seeming meat is not a created thing from its inception, rather, it is any created thing in decay/going bad. Something which is decaying/has gone bad is rijsun.

Looking forward to your reply.

unknownuser

TANVEER,

PB's misinterpretations have created at least three MAJOR and GRAVE contradictions in the Qur'aan. Following are the 3 contradictions

FIRST GRAVE CONTRADICTION

6146 AND for the Jews We have forbidden all that have claws; and from the cattle and the sheep We forbade their fat except what is attached to the back, or entrails, or mixed with bone. That is a punishment for their rebellion, and We are truthful.

In 6146 there is NO mention of dead animals, blood, "lahma khinzeerin", and "what is dedicated to other than Allah" (the food part) as being haram for Jews.

55 Today, the good things have been made lawful to you, and the food of those who have been given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them;

According to 55, the food of the people of the scripture is lawful to the believers.

According to 6146, DEAD ANIMALS, BLOOD, "LAHMA KHINZEERIN", and "WHAT IS DEDICATED TO OTHER THAN ALLAH" (the food part), 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" (the food part), are lawful to the believers, because it is the food of the people of the scripture ("What is dedicated to other than Allah" also includes FOOD that is dedicated to other than Allah).

What you continue to miss Tanveer is this

Ayat 6146 is telling us somethings which Allah, from their inception, was created as FOOD i.e. animals with claws, animals without claws and fat and this is why you don't find dead animals, blood, or ill-seeming flesh, being mentioned in ayat 6146.
Allah, from its inception, did not create a dead animal, blood, and ill-seeming meat as FOOD for people. What is dedicated to can be anything, hence, it is not necessarily applying to food. Btw, do you know that the so-called halal food which you purchase is actually haram to eat? Ayat 55 makes haram the eating of anything other than Allah's name being pronounced over it, correct? Well, does Allah have any such name/descriptive title in Al-Quran called AKBAR? If not, then, it is name other than Allah's, hence, whatever that individual intends to eat is now haram. Just some FYI stuff.
The foods which were made haram to the Jews, were not because those foods, by their created nature were fasiqun/rijsun, they were made haram as PUNISHMENT. If those foods were made haram because they were, by their created nature fasiqun/rijsun, then, they would not be halal (per ayat 55), which they are, for us either.
Your mistaken notion that my argument contradicts 55 is now resolved. Now, on the other hand, your argument does contradict ayat 55, because at the time of 55 being revealed, pigs, not having claws, could not have been a haram food for the Jews, hence, it was halal to the Jews, therefore, halal to us. There is no way for you to Quranically overcome your contradiction, because the Jews and what they were commanded by Allah preceded Al-Quran. Hence, your's, SC's, and Marie's--"AND" invention (6146 being a continuation of ayat 6145) evaporates.

unknownuser

TANVEER,

SECOND GRAVE CONTRADICTION

393 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 this PB misinterprets that all possible food was sanctioned/made halal to COI by Allah's decree, and what Israel forbade on himself was self imposed, and not authorized by Allah. If that is true then all food includes "what is dedicated to other than Allah" (the food part), so by sanctioning all possible food, Allah also sanctioned "what is dedicated to other than Allah" (the food part) to COI, but then that would mean Allah sanctioned/allowed shirk ! Allah never ever sanctions shirk.

I have no idea what you are trying to express above. Sounds like you've gotten caught up in your own convoluted machinations.

Another GRAVE contradiction created by PB's misinterpretation.

393 does not say that ALL food was made halal to COI without exceptions. The word "except" clearly shows that some food was made haram to COI by The God's decree, and it was the same food that Israel forbade on himself, following The God's decree. This resolves the apparent contradiction created by PB's misinterpretation of 393.

The ayat states

All food, previous to what the Prophet Israel made haram for himself, was halal to the COI.
It was Israel and NOT Allah, who imposed the restriction. Do you see in the ayat that Allah made some food haram for Israel, I don't?
The "exception" applies ONLY to the Prophet Israel, that is, if you accept SC's and Marie's position that, it is the Prophet Israel and not the wider COI community, being discussed in ayat 393.
That there were food restrictions placed on the COI/Jewish community when the Torah was revealed, is certain and, Allah, in ayat 6146, FOR A CERTITUDE, either in total or in part, tell us what food was made haram to them. Again, these foods were not made haram because they were, by nature, fasiqun/rijsun, but as a result of transgressions.
Now, for you

Main Entry FOOD material consisting essentially of protein, carbohydrate, and fat used in the body of an organism to sustain growth, repair, and vital processes and to furnish energy.

A. What food item or food items, exactly, did Israel make haram for himself? Was it one food or many foods, which is it? By way of Al-Quran...prove it.

B. The food he made haram for himself, did this carry over to the COI? Yes or no? By way of Al-Quran...prove it.

C. What food or foods, exactly, were made haram to the Jews?

D. Was road kill created by Allah as a specie of food? Was blood created by Allah as a specie of food? Was ill-seeming flesh, whether meat or produce, created by Allah as a specie of food?

unknownuser

TANVEER,

THIRD GRAVE CONTRADICTION

327 The One who made excellently (ahsana) everything He created and He began the creation of the human from mud.

PB misinterprets this as meaning that The God created everything good.

If all creation is good as per PB's misinterpretation, then ill seeming/bad/dirty/rotten meat also has to be good, but then that would contradict 6145 where even if lahma khinzeerin means ill seeming meat, it is still called "rijsun". According to PB's misinterpretation, ALL creation is good, so NOTHING can be "rijsun", but The God calls a few things "rijsun" in the Qur'aan which would be a contradiction.

Another GRAVE contradiction created by PB's misinterpretation.

This apparent contradiction is resolved by correctly translating 327.

327 The One who made excellently (ahsana) everything He created and He began the creation of the human from mud.

As can be clearly seen, the word used in this ayat/sign is "ahsana" and not "tayyib" or "hasanan".

According to Dictionary of Qur'aan by Abdul mannan Omar

AHSANA (prf. 3rd. p. m. sing.) He did good, He did excellently (used as verb)

Note that "ahsana" is used as a verb, and not as 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.

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 made excellently everything He created"

A different word is used when The God talks about consumable or edible foods

2168 O people, eat of what is in the Earth as good (tayyiban) and lawful, and do not follow the steps of the devil, he is to you a clear enemy.
587 O you who believe, do not forbid the good things (tayyibat) that God has made lawful to you, and do not aggress; God does not like the aggressors.
588 And eat from what God has provided for you, good (tayyiban) and lawful; and be aware of God in whom you believe.

As can be clearly seen the word used here is "tayyiban" as adjective (2168, 588 ) and "tayyibat" as noun (587).

TAYYIBAN (adj.) Good, clean, wholesome, pure.

This word is used as adjective in the quoted ayaat/signs, and is different from "ahsana" which is used as a verb in 327 and carries a different connotation.

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, well, 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

Allah, would not have allowed mankind from day one to eat it.
He would contradict Himself at ayat 327.

What other sleight of hand trick will you perform next? wink Looking forward to it anyway.

unknownuser

TANVEER,

It's time to pack it in now. There is no way that you, SC, Marie, Jaxal etc., can overcome ayat 6146.

IF THE CLAW DON'T FIT...YOU MUST ACQUIT! D

Jaxal

SaLaM Danish and Joe and Idris

Contrary to what you have seen, i have seen dogs and cat cover their excrement with sand. So even tho i can accept what you are saying, i simply dont see how this compares them to the pig. Pig will eat their excrement and human's excrement naturally. Again, neither of you can refute that. I have not come across one article which says that dogs eat their excrement naturally. So far, the argument that pig is allowed, has not been proved.

unknownuser

TANVEER,

It's time to pack it in now. There is no way that you, SC, Marie, Jaxal etc., can overcome ayats 393, 4160, and 6146.

IF THE CLAW DON'T FIT...YOU MUST ACQUIT! D

unknownuser

Peace all,

As you can all clearly see, PB has not been able to answer all my 10 questions posed to him, and he has not been able to overcome the grammatical contradiction that he has created in addition to the 3 other grave contradictions created by his misinterpretations. He can twist The God's words all he can but the case for lahma alkhinzeerin meaning pig's meat is made. There is no way PB can overcome the clear revelations 6145, 6146, 393, 4160, 327, 53, 55 all pointing to lahma alkhinzeerin meaning pig's meat, without causing GRAVE contradictions.

PB's flawed arguments and misinterpretations have actually helped me by making me do the pertinent research and thereby building up a much clearer understanding that lahma alkhinzeerin as mentioned in the Qur'aan can only mean pig's meat, and I thank him for that.

Readers can go through the entire thread and reach their own understanding; we all are accountable only to The God on the Last Day. I am still awaiting the answers to all my 10 questions posed to PB. The fact that he has not been able to answer them speaks for itself. I fervently hope that The God shows him the right path and he is able to disentangle the web of contradictions created by him and extricate himself from an embarrassing situation.

TheNabi

Salaam,

Contrary to what you have seen, i have seen dogs and cat cover their excrement with sand.

So have I, not much with dogs really, but moreso and frequently with cats. This still does not hinder the fact that dogs do eat shit Jaxal. I think you are being a little close-minded here.

So even tho i can accept what you are saying, i simply dont see how this compares them to the pig.

Simple, they both happen to eat shit.

Pig will eat their excrement and human's excrement naturally.

What is natural to you? As I have said, I've seen more than one dog, owned by the same person, eat excrement.

Again, neither of you can refute that.

No one is trying to, I do not think. There is no argument with me that pigs do eat excrement.

I have not come across one article which says that dogs eat their excrement naturally.

I pose my question to you again

"What is natural to you? As I have said, I've seen more than one dog, owned by the same person, eat excrement."

So far, the argument that pig is allowed, has not been proved.

That should not hinder you from at least seeing otherwise or being open to the idea.

You said before you were somewhat of a hardcore Sunni. I do not think you have actually changed your method/s of doing things much from before. You run to conclusions awfully quick and hardly give a thought to any indifference. Your emotions do seem to come between you and thoughtful reasoning. Like before , I think constant repetition or repeating of things is the only way that someone or something may get through to you. Just my thoughts.

Joe

unknownuser

I have not come across one article which says that dogs eat their excrement naturally.

You haven't looked very hard. Its common knowledge that dogs love to eat Manure, Cow/Horse Manure and even their own

Why do dogs Eat Poop

Have you ever wondered why dogs eat horse manure?

Why do dogs eat Feces?

unknownuser

TANVEER,

As you can all clearly see, PB has not been able to answer all my 10 questions posed to him, and he has not been able to overcome the grammatical contradiction that he has created in addition to the 3 other grave contradictions created by his misinterpretations.

LOL!! I see that you cannot refute my response to your so-called three grave contradictions, eh?

The so-called grammatical contradiction you so dearly cling to, is just one more canard. You do not, obviously, grasp the Quranic grammar for if you did you would realize that no grammatical form can contradict the actual content of an ayat. I asked Tay and I will now ask you, were you taught to read and to read with comprehension first or were you taught man-made rules of grammar first, which did you learn first? Those who first received Al-Quran, did they understand today's terms and rules of grammar, if so, produce your evidence of this.

He can twist The God's words all he can but the case for lahma alkhinzeerin meaning pig's meat is made. There is no way PB can overcome the clear revelations 6145, 6146, 393, 4160, 327, 53, 55 all pointing to lahma alkhinzeerin meaning pig's meat, without causing GRAVE contradictions.

"Pointing to" does not mean "is" LOL! my God, you aren't even definite about your own position, yet, you want otherrs to reject my Quranic argument and accept what you aren't even certain about. You continue to render opinion and not Quranic facts. To give opinion about Allah is haram (see 733 and 1736).

PB's flawed arguments and misinterpretations have actually helped me by making me do the pertinent research and thereby building up a much clearer understanding that lahma alkhinzeerin as mentioned in the Qur'aan can only mean pig's meat, and I thank him for that.

If what you've done is research and these are the conclusions which you've reached, well, I feel quite uneasy for your patients. You are a blind follower, Tanveer.

Readers can go through the entire thread and reach their own understanding; we all are accountable only to The God on the Last Day. I will not make any further posts until some new point is brought up, or PB answers all my 10 questions posed to him. I fervently hope that The God shows him the right path and he is able to disentangle the web of contradictions created by him and extricate himself from an embarrassing situation. Case closed, signing out.

Why don't you stop with the baloney already. The only person now who is embarrassing is you. You continue to set up this unreasonable demand ..."I will not respond until PB answers all of my 10 questions etc." I just answered your so-called grave contradictions so why aren't you refuting them? Tell you what, post the rest of the ineffectual questions which you say I didn't answer. Of course you won't, because you know you are done and now simply wish to fade into the background. Fine by me, however, let's call your "signing-off speech" exactly what it is...a capitualtion/"it's time to run for the hills" speech and, in fact, it is you who is attempting to exctricate himself from an embarrassing situation; you are simply projecting on to me. You have nothing Tanveer and you lost this debate just as soon as I posted 6146.

And, as far as that self-righteous..."I fervently hope that The God shows him the right path", nonsense is concerned, Allah, has shown us both the right path concerning this issue, however, due to your pride you outright reject it. One can only have superstition (superstion to maintain a position despite the evidence to the contrary) when one rejects the evidence. You'd do better asking Allah, fevently, to help you get honest with self and others.

And remember

IF THE CLAW DON'T FIT...YOU MUST ACQUIT! D

unknownuser

PEACE TO ALL.

Following are the conclusions and pertinent ayats concerning the debate over what is the meaning of "lahma khinzerin"

No created thing, by nature, is created fasiqun/rijsun.
No animal specie, by nature, was created fasiqun/rijsun.
All species of animal, for food, were/are halal to mankind.
Road kill, blood, ill-seeming flesh (whether animal or produce), and things dedicated to other than Allah, are not species of animals.
All food was lawful to the COI/Jews, before they transgressed.
The Jews were forbidden to eat animals with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep. The animals made haram weren't because they were fasiqun/rijsun by nature, but as a punishment to Jews for a time.
Pigs don't have claws, hence, it was not haram for food for the Jews.
Ayat 55 states that the food of the People of the Book and our food are halal to each other. As the pig was never made haram to the People of the Book i.e. the Jews, it is therefore halal to both parties.
No so-called "rule of grammar" can contradict the actual content of an ayat ( I think we were all taught to read and read with comprehension before being introduced to "rules of grammar" much later on.
Conclusion lahma khinzerin cannot mean flesh of pigs, hence, pig is halal for Muslims to eat as food.

2173 He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful.

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."

4160 For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from Allah's Way;-

51 O ye who believe! fulfil (all) obligations. Lawful unto you (for food) are all four-footed animals, with the exceptions named But animals of the chase are forbidden while ye are in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb for Allah doth command according to His will and plan.

53 Forbidden to you (for food) are dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah. that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows that is impiety. This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

55 This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).

587 O ye who believe! make not unlawful the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you, but commit no excess for Allah loveth not those given to excess.

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.

7160 We divided them into twelve tribes or nations. We directed Moses by inspiration, when his (thirsty) people asked him for water "Strike the rock with thy staff" out of it there gushed forth twelve springs Each group knew its own place for water. We gave them the shade of clouds, and sent down to them manna and quails, (saying) "Eat of the good things We have provided for you" (but they rebelled); to Us they did no harm, but they harmed their own souls.

1059 Say "See ye what things Allah hath sent down to you for sustenance? Yet ye hold forbidden some things thereof and (some things) lawful." Say "Hath Allah indeed permitted you, or do ye invent (things) to attribute to Allah."

16116 But say not - for any false thing that your tongues may put forth,- "This is lawful, and this is forbidden," so as to ascribe false things to Allah. For those who ascribe false things to Allah, will never prosper.

327 He Who has made everything which He has created most good He began the creation of man with (nothing more than) clay,

Jaxal

SaLaM Joe and Albion

ALbion, thanks for pointing out those articles. More interested in the last article you provided.

Joe

Im not being close minded here. The article that albion provided http//www.drsfostersmith.com/pic/article.cfm?dept_id=&aid=748 provides possible reasons why dogs do that. So again, its not natural. Even with humans, God has allowed us to eat pork if we have nothing else to eat. If we do eat pork in that situation, it wont be natural.

Infact, i did some research, and this is actually a kind of behavioural problem. Its called Coprophagia. Again, proving my point, dogs and cats wont do it naturally.

Also, i have been searching if Dogs and cats will eat both THEIR feaces AND HUMAN FEACES, but so far, i havent found anything. Albion, if you have some more articles, plz let me know. So far, Dogs and cats will eat only thier feaces, which is a behavioural problem called Coprophagia, but not human feaces. Something pigs do quite happily and naturally.

And by naturally i mean, if they shit, they would simply eat it. whereas, cats and dogs will cover theres.

And in any case we are discussing pigs here. Not cats and dogs. And pigs will eat their own feaces AND human feaces with no problem what so ever. It boggles me why you some of you are having trouble seeig why it was forbidden in Torah, Bible (deutronomy i think, i dont have my bible with me right now, otherwise i would quote the verse) and the Quran. Simply mindboggling shock

SwedenMajidah

Salaam,

I must say I'm amazed and surprised!!!!!!!

I am grown up with dogs and never ever I have seen them eating poo and especially not their own poo.

But perhaps my dogs have been smart dogs because they belongs to me lol

And for pigs, pigs are really clean animals they have their own toilet and they like to take a bath.They are also very intelligent even more than a dog.It has been more common these days to keep a minipig as a pet.

SO HOW CAN YOU EAT A PET!!!???????

Go veggie go as I always says!!!!

Peace
Sis Majidah

unknownuser

Peace all,

As you can all clearly see,

PB has not been able to answer all my 10 questions posed to him,
He has not been able to overcome the grammatical contradiction that his mistranslation has created,
He has not been able to overcome and give any reasonable reply to the other grave contradictions created by his misinterpretations.

Giving nonsensical responses without resolving the actual contradictions created by his flawed arguments is meaningless. The above speaks for itself.

He can twist The God's words all he can but he still cannot prove his assertions, and the case for lahma alkhinzeerin meaning pig's meat is made.

The following is the DEFINITIVE conclusion of the discussion over what "lahma alkhinzeerin" means

According to the internal grammar of the Qur'aan and the context and logic of the clear ayat 6145, 6146, 53, 55, 4160, 327, 2173, 16115, 587, 7160, 1059, 16116, "lahma alkhinzeerin" as used in the Qur'aan CANNOT mean ill seeming meat, but can ONLY mean PIG'S MEAT. The nonsensical arguments and responses of PB have further strengthened the case for "lahma alkhinzeerin" meaning pig's meat.

CONCLUSION PIG'S MEAT AS FOOD IS HARAM/FORBIDDEN FOR MANKIND

THE CLAW DID NOT FIT, SO PB WILL HAVE TO QUIT !! wink

wildguest1956

Allah, from its inception, did not create a dead animal, blood, and ill-seeming meat as FOOD for people.

Peace PB,

Could you bring the ayat that proves this assertion (that carrion, blood, or lahma khinzeerin is not food, for all mankind, including CoI) ?
Since you are admitting that carrion, blood, or lahma khinzeerin is part of God's (perfect) creation, is there not a contradiction between the fact these things are not food, and ayat ?

The One who made excellently (ahsana) everything He created and He began the creation of the human from mud.

Please note I am not trying to prove that carrion, blood, or lahma khinzeerin is food. I am just trying to prove that your are misunderstanding by stating this verse talks about edible food.

Hope you will clearly answer to my 2 clear questions, without ducking them by false accusations.

Thanks in advance

marie

Salam JM,

Allah, from its inception, did not create a dead animal, blood, and ill-seeming meat as FOOD for people.

Could you bring the ayat that proves this assertion (that carrion, blood, or lahma khinzeerin is not food, for all mankind, including CoI) ?
Since you are admitting that carrion, blood, or lahma khinzeerin is part of God's (perfect) creation, is there not a contradiction between the fact these things are not food, and ayat ?

6145 states clearly that carrion, blood, and the meat of pig are unlawfull foods except If one is forced by dire need without being deliberate and without transgressing, then one can eat them, our Lord is Forgiving, Merciful wink

6145 Say, "I do not find in the Revelation given to me, any food that is prohibited for one eater who wishes to eat except Carrion (dead meat), running blood as against organ meats, the flesh of swine for it is disapproved, or anything (not just meat) which, in disobedience, has been dedicated to other than Allah. If one is forced by dire need without being deliberate and without transgressing, your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful. (2173), (53).
Qul la ajidu feema oohiyailayya muharraman AAala taAAimin yatAAamuhu illa an yakoona maytatan aw daman masfoohan aw lahmakhinzeerin fa-innahu rijsun aw fisqan ohilla lighayri Allahibihi famani idturra ghayra baghin wala AAadinfa-inna rabbaka ghafoorun raheemun

attaAAam = food

And We did not make for them bodies that do not need to eat food, nor were they immortal.
Wama jaAAalnahum jasadan la ya/kuloona alttaAAama wama kanookhalideena
And they said What is with this messenger that he eats the food and walks in the market places? If only an Angel were sent down to him so that he would jointly be a warner.
Waqaloo mali hatha alrrasooli ya/kulu alttaAAama wayamshee fee al-aswaqilawla onzila ilayhi malakun fayakoona maAAahu natheeran
Surely, the tree of Bitterness
Inna shajarata alzzaqqoomi
1. Will be the food for the sinful.
  TaAAamu al-atheemi
Like hot oil, it will boil in the stomachs
Kaalmuhli yaghlee fee albutooni
Nor any food, except from pollutants
Wala taAAamun illamin ghisleenin
Which none eat but the sinners. .
La ya/kuluhu illa alkhati-oona

wildguest1956

Salam JM,

Allah, from its inception, did not create a dead animal, blood, and ill-seeming meat as FOOD for people.

Could you bring the ayat that proves this assertion (that carrion, blood, or lahma khinzeerin is not food, for all mankind, including CoI) ?
Since you are admitting that carrion, blood, or lahma khinzeerin is part of God's (perfect) creation, is there not a contradiction between the fact these things are not food, and ayat ?

6145 states clearly that carrion, blood, and the meat of pig are unlawfull foods except If one is forced by dire need without being deliberate and without transgressing, then one can eat them, our Lord is Forgiving, Merciful wink

Ok, but does this verse applies to the CoI ?

If the answer to this question is "yes", then, clearly, lahma khinzeerin is not food (is not halal to be eaten) for the CoI.

PB's opinion on this subject would also be welcomed.

Peace

marie

Ok, but does this verse applies to the CoI ?

The Reading is for mankind, then the response to your question is yes.

This Quran narrates to the Children of Israel most of that which they are in dispute over.
And it is a guidance and mercy for the believers.
What is being said to you is the same that was said to the messengers before you. Your Lord has forgiveness, and a painful retribution.