Is Swine Hallal

Jaxal

SaLaM PB

I will be more specific. Who is God forbidding from eating pigs meat in the following verse

He Has only forbidden for you what is already dead, and the blood, and the meat of pig, and what was dedicated to other than God. Whoever finds himself forced out of need and without disobedience or animosity, then there is no sin upon him. God is Forgiving, Merciful.

So, in the above verse, who is God forbidding ?

unknownuser

Peace Priest Bokmei,

In the thread Pork & Logic, it has been conclusively shown according to Qur'aanic context, arabic language, grammar, and logic, that lahma khinzeerin as used in 6145 means meat of pig.

Following is the link

http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2074&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=150

In 6145, Allah clearly makes meat of pig, dead animals, blood, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah" HARAM FOR JEWS (that ayat is for mankind and mankind includes Jews).

WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING 6145 ???

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.
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.

The "AND" at the beginning of 6146 shows that both 6145 and 6146 are connected and 6146 is a CONTINUATION of 6145. In 6145 Allah tells explicitly what things are haram for all mankind, including Jews, and in 6146 He tells us what things are ADDITIONALLY haram for Jews only.

SO ACCORDING TO THE 2 AYAAT, THE LIST OF HARAM FOOD FOR JEWS IS AS FOLLOWS

Already dead
Blood
Lahma khinzeerin
What is dedicated to other than Allah
All that have claws
Fat of cattle and sheep except what is attached to back, entrails, or mixed with bone.

ALL OF THE ABOVE WERE MADE HARAM FOR JEWS.

1-4 haram for mankind including Jews.
1-6 haram for Jews (5 and 6 haram only for Jews in addition to 1-4 as a punishment for their rebellion).

Keeping this in mind, 55 becomes very clear, and there is NO CONTRADICTION between 6145, 6146, and 55.

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;

Food of Jews (people of scripture) = everything except 1-6 mentioned above = lawful for mankind

Mankind's food = everything except 1-4 mentioned above = lawful for Jews (the 5 and 6 were made lawful for them by Allah through 55)

Therefore NO CONTRADICTION. Q.E.D.

NOW PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS

Given that 6145 lists food made haram for mankind, and that mankind includes Jews, Why do you keep ignoring what Allah EXPLICITLY makes forbidden for Jews in 6145 ?
The "AND" at the beginning of 6146 clearly shows that 6146 is a CONTINUATION of 6145, so you cannot isolate 6146 from 6145. Why do you keep ignoring the "AND" at the beginning of 6146 and keep isolating 6146 from 6145 ?

Why do you keep rejecting parts of the word of Allah (e.g. 6145) ?

1338 And those to whom We have previously given the Scripture rejoice at what has been sent down to you, but there are some of the groups that reject parts of it.

Given that Allah, in 6146, does not forbid the Jews to eat dead meat, blood, lahma khinzeerin, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah", hence, according to your twisted logic it was lawful to them, and ayat 55 states that their food and our food are halal for each other, dead meat, blood, lahma khinzeerin, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah", then has to be halal for mankind. But then that would contradict 6145 where Allah has clearly made dead meat, blood, lahma khinzeerin and "what is dedicated to other than Allah" HARAM FOR MANKIND, WHICH INCLUDES JEWS. How will you explain that ?

You won't answer my questions that I have been asking you over and over, because these questions will expose your twisted logic immediately.

Please stop ignoring 6145 WHERE ALLAH HAS CLEARLY FORBIDDEN LAHMA KHINZEERIN TO JEWS, and stop ignoring the "AND" at the beginning of 6146, clearly showing that 6146 is a CONTINUATION OF 6145, so both 6145 and 6146 have to be considered TOGETHER, and not in isolation.

savage_carrot

PB,

Lets not needlessly complicate and obusfucate a VERY simple concept and the clear verses of the quran. Let's cut to the chase.

Everything is lawful UNLESS forbidden

51 O you who believe, you shall fulfill your covenants. Permitted for you to eat are the livestock, except those specifically prohibited herein. You shall not permit hunting throughout Hajj pilgrimage. GOD decrees whatever He wills.

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;

O you who believe, eat of the good things We have provided for you, and be thankful to God; if it is Him you serve.

If one takes the latter two seperately from restrictions(exceptions) provided in al quran, then it implies NO restrictions.

If one keeps restrictions in mind provided by al quran, then ALL food is lawful UNLESS forbidden.

With this in mind, leave the MEANING of lahma khinzeerin ASIDE and address your so called 'logical' argument part that falls flat when lahma khinzeerin is mentioned as being FORBIDDEN in 6145 and 6146 tells us of ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS...not the ONLY restrictions as This was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion" details.

6145 Say, "I do not find in the revelations given to me any food that is prohibited for any eater except (1) carrion, (2) running blood, (3) the meat of pigs, for it is contaminated, and (4) the meat of animals blasphemously dedicated to other than GOD." If one is forced (to eat these), without being deliberate or malicious, then your Lord is Forgiver, Most 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.

If one assumes that 6146 were the ONLY restrictions imposed on jews, what is the meaning of "This was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion", because that is telling us that it is ADDITIONAL. That is why those restrictions are DIFFERENT from 6145 and called PUNISHMENT. That logically concludes that 6146 is a COUNTINUATION of 6145 with ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS.

Additionally, if one believes that those were the ONLY restrictions on the jewish people then, they were allowed EVERYTHING except animals with claws, and the fat of cattle and sheep...this is far less than what we've been forbidden...according to this, we must be the ones who are being PUNISHED with ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS. How does it possibly make sense to get away with LESS and called being PUNISHED than those said NOT to be punished at ALL?

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

The common denominator in my position is that, khinzerin="ill seming". Now, "ill-seming", can be apply to many things and not create a discrepancy. Your wanting to make khinzerin a literal animal on one hand, and a similitude on the other, is not only being inconsistent, but oppositional to Allah and His Quran.

SC Khanazeer = pig , Lahma Khinzeerin = pig meat.

PB Khinzerin = ill seeming behaviour? , Lahma Khinzeerin = ill seeming meat

Metaphors are gauged by CONTEXT and NOT the LITERAL words used...if the word used Khinzerin literally means ill seeming behaviour, then we are not supposed to be eating the meat of the ill seeming behaviour in 6145. Way to go consistency yeah!

Please tell me which part of khanazeer in arabic is referring to behaviour ( as in the word in 560). We know what khinz is and what ara is, where is the word for behaviour in the same 'compound' word?

Khanazeer in your 'main entry' is itself comprised of 'bad' and 'see'...so Where is behaviour? You can either take "I see it bad" OR "proud" OR "stubborn", even "ill seeming" if you want. What you CAN'T do is put behaviour in the same word comprising of khinz + ara as well. Unless you are telling us it can be broken down into THREE parts, in which case i would ask you to provide your dictionary PROOF.

Once again, UNLESS you show us where behaviour exists in the compound word khinz along with ara...should we not be eating the meat of the ill seeming? If you DO somehow put in behaviour, then we should not be eating the meat of the ill seeming behaviour.

I want to make khinzeer a metaphor in one verse and literal in the other? Dear God! Ironic is an understatement. You accuse me of doing something that you are doing YOURSELF.

I said VERY CLEARLY that whether TURNING into khinzeer is metaphorical or literal is IRRELEVANT to the discussion of the ACTUAL LITERAL WORD USED. The literal word is khanazeer meaning pig, where its lahma khinzeerin it's pig meat.

On the OTHER hand, YOU say it is an obvious metaphor in 560 thus YOU are using khanazeer as a metaphor. Do YOU use it as a metaphor in 6145? You are not eating the meat of the ill seeming?...or ill seeming behaviour? AMAZING. Now if you use it literally in 6145 "OMG! you are not only being INCONSISTENT but OPPOSITIONAL to Allah and His Quran."

Yes, Al-Quran is devoid of convoluted explanations and, while mine are not as well, I do dislike having to do so much explaining. The only reason why I've had to explain at length as I have, is because you have not been able to intellectually connect the dots i.e. ayats 53, 55, and 6146, to this point.

As you've given ur subjective opinion, it's only fair that I should give mine. The only reason that you have to explain/convolute so much is because when stripped to the bare bones, your argument holds no water.

Please post the ayat where jesus made certain foodstuff lawful for the jewish people first before assumptions are made...Thanks!

If NONE of the ayats you posted tell us of WHAT forbidden stuff exactly he made HALAL, then why are YOU conjecturing it must be pig? It could be animals with claws, it could be any manner of thing previously forbidden. You have NO solid proof that it was PIG or WHATEVER, thus this claim falls flat with lack of evidence.

Actually...it's not. You're a smart girl and down the road this will eventually make sense to you, insha-Allah.

Thank you for the kind comments...but your opinion is still subjective. )

What a hoot! I can't believe you wrote that! This coming from someone who wants the whole PIG to be HALAL...Go prove that to the muslim ummah at large!! And whats with the hypothetical questions? Stay on topic, this adds nothing to the discussion.

I can prove this to ummah at large, that is not the problem. The problem, as you and Tanveer are illustrative of for the moment, is denial...the rejection of what has been proven
.

If you can prove the WHOLE pig is halal to the muslim ummah at large, why the OUTCRY over ONLY lard and hooves? And the hypothetical question "OMG! Will you eat lard OMG!"

What we are illustrative of can be opined directly by all reading this communication...but thank you once again for making your subjective opinion clear...

Lordy, yet you can drag one item out from a list of four and say thats the one I will conjecture about?

Hmmm...what, exactly, is my conjecture?

Amazing! After this someone has the audacity to talk about denial! Let me refresh your memory once again if it's too fast for you to follow...

I don't know why Allah doesn't specifically name the above items as being haram for the Jews and I am not going to conjecture about it.

If the jews were not forbidden "dead meat/blood/that which is dedicated to other than God", can we eat it too? This is an illustration of deliberate pick and choose out of a list of three other items with no reason. Either include ALL the items or don't.

PBM LOL! end of story? wishful thinking . You have yet to explain the why Allah makes no mention of the animal--pig, in the category of haram animals in ayat 6146. Until you can do this, you are only following conjecture.

Already addressed in this post above.

My assertion is very plain, that being, Allah, specifically, in ayat 6146, names the category of animals which He made haram to the Jews and, thus far, despite your blustering, you have not denied nor disproven this fact...now have you? I've proven my assertion that, Allah, never names the pig as haram for the Jews to eat. Now, why he didn't do something else, well, that is for you to figure out.

You can claim you've proven it, does not make your claim true.

Well, before Al-Quran was revealed, as ayat 6146 and 350 indicate, where does Allah make the pig haram for the Jews to eat? You have yet to provide this evidence and it is critical to your position. Without this evidence, you are only conjecturing.

Given time and time again. Instead of ignoring it and repeating the same points ad nauseum, please try to dissemble or disprove the other side this time keeping in mind the point below

There are two parts to your 'argument' and they can and should be talked about seperately as I mentioned before

What's the deal then with the jews being allowed/not forbidden lahma khinzeerin and it's thus okay for all of us (in reality it is in blatant contradiction with many verses including 6147) when one does not accept lahma khinzeerin as pig meat? Because even IF lahma khinzeerin is not pig meat it's still HARAM to mankind which makes the former part of the argument inclusive of 6146 fall flat...

Thus, one is your 'logical' part and one is your 'meaning of word part'. If you disagree please give your reasons for not discussing these separately.

unknownuser

PEACE, JAXAL,

SaLaM PB

I will be more specific. Who is God forbidding from eating pigs meat in the following verse

He Has only forbidden for you what is already dead, and the blood, and the meat of pig, and what was dedicated to other than God. Whoever finds himself forced out of need and without disobedience or animosity, then there is no sin upon him. God is Forgiving, Merciful.

So, in the above verse, who is God forbidding ?

Here's the problem, Jaxal. You continue to translate "lahma khinzerin" to mean the flesh of swine, this is your error and why you continue to believe that I am not answering your question. There is no pig being mentioned in the above ayat, it is simply a mistranslation. The ayat is saying to avoid flesh which appears ill-seeming/khanzerin. Many homeless people, because they are driven by necessity, frequently eat khanzerin--ill-seeming flesh.

Hope this cleared things up fpr you.

savage_carrot

You continue to translate "lahma khinzerin" to mean the flesh of swine, this is your error and why you continue to believe that I am not answering your question. There is no pig being mentioned in the above ayat, it is simply a mistranslation. The ayat is saying to avoid flesh which appears ill-seeming/khanzerin.

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 (rijsun) ; or what is corruptly (fisqan) dedicated to other than God.? Whoever is forced without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful. (6145)

Root of 'rijsun'

Ra-Jiim-Siin = state of commotion, confuse greatly, make a noise/sound, hinder/prevent, unclean/dirty/filthy, evil, something which is unlawful/forbidden, unbelief/infidelity/doubt.

Thus bad/dirty meat is called unclean/dirty/filthy...redundancy anyone?

Or

Thus bad/dirty meat is called unlawful/forbidden...redundancy anyone?

Or

Thus we should avoid bad/dirty meat that is already called bad/dirty in the above verse...redundancy anyone?

Amazing.

unknownuser

PEACE, TANVEER,

In the thread Pork & Logic, it has been conclusively shown according to Qur'aanic context, arabic language, grammar, and logic, that lahma khinzeerin as used in 6145 means meat of pig.

Following is the link

http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2074&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=150

I was not aware of this thread, however, I did a cursory examination of it, but found no mention of ayats 6146, 53 or 55 in relation to understanding khanzerin. These ayats are important in understanding the was is being mistranslated as swine. You and SC, continue to translate "lahma khinzerin" to mean the flesh of swine, this is your error and why you continue to believe that I am not answering your question. There is no pig being mentioned in the above ayat, it is simply a mistranslation. The ayat is saying to avoid flesh which appears ill-seeming/khanzerin. Many homeless people, because they are driven by necessity, frequently eat khanzerin--ill-seeming flesh.

WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING 6145 ???

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.

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.

The "AND" at the beginning of 6146 shows that both 6145 and 6146 are connected and 6146 is a CONTINUATION of 6145. In 6145 Allah tells explicitly what things are haram for all mankind, including Jews, and in 6146 He tells us what things are ADDITIONALLY haram for Jews only.

I'm not ignoring anything. If I'm understanding you and SC correctly, it apears that you are you are claiming that, when ayat 6146 was revealed, it is stating that the Jews have other restrictions placed on them in addition to what is placed on mankind in general, am I correct? Well, if that is in fact yours and SC's position, then, Allah, has given the Jews and mankind two different set of laws to follow right into the present day. How is that possible? Your position cannot be correct, because unless I'm mistaken, ayat 6146 isn't talking about the Jews in the present tense, but the PAST tense. If this weren't true, then, the following ayat makes absolutely no sense at all

350 And a verifier of that which is before me of the Taurat and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord therefore be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me.

Remember, ayat 6146 informs us of what Allah made haram for the Jews to eat, there simply is no questioning this fact. Now, ayat 350 informs us that, part of what Allah had made haram for the Jews to eat, Jesus was given the authority to make part of it halal. So, if ayat 6146 is in the present tense how could Jesus make lawful part of what was forbidden to the Jews? Ayat 6146 was revealed long after the death of Jesus...yes?

So, the question before us now is...is ayat 6146, regarding the Jews and prohibited food, referring to their past or to their present?

Looking forward to your reply.

unknownuser

SC,

My last post to Tanveer, applies to you as well.

What's your response?

savage_carrot

PB,

You have the integrity of haggis.

Reply to MY last post, directed to YOUR last post to me, instead of running away.

Jaxal

SaLaM PB

Looooooooooooooooolllllllllllllllll you remind me of an experiance i had when i was in Abu Dhabi. So you are telling me, that all the arab translators, whose first language is arabic, who spent half their life studing the Quran, who spend time studying Aramaic and who have translated this word to be flesh of pig, YOU are telling me that they are wrong? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL HHAHAHAHHHAHAHHA OH MANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN. Let us see

Literal
But He forbade/prohibited on you animals whose death was caused by suffocation or strangulation/dead, and the blood, and the pig's/swine's meat/flesh, and what is praised/declared to whom the sacrifice was made with it to other than God, so who was forced, not transgressing/corrupting , and nor transgressing/violating , so no sin/crime on him, that God (is) forgiving , most merciful .

Free-Minds
He has only forbidden for you what is already dead, and the blood, and the meat of pig, and what was dedicated to other than God. Whoever finds himself forced out of need and without disobedience or animosity, then there is no sin upon him. God is Forgiving, Merciful.

Rashad Khalifa
He only prohibits for you the eating of animals that die of themselves (without human interference), blood, the meat of pigs, and animals dedicated to other than GOD. If one is forced (to eat these), without being malicious or deliberate, he incurs no sin. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

Yusuf Ali
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.

Shakir
He has only forbidden you what dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that over which any other (name) than (that of) Allah has been invoked; but whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring, nor exceeding the limit, no sin shall be upon him; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Pickthal
He hath forbidden you only carrion, and blood, and swineflesh, and that which hath been immolated to (the name of) any other than Allah. But he who is driven by necessity, neither craving nor transgressing, it is no sin for him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Arberry
These things only has He forbidden you carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, what has been hollowed to other than God. Yet who so is constrained, not desiring nor transgressing, no sin shall be on him; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.

George Sale
Verily he hath forbidden you to eat that which dieth of is self, and blood, and swine's flesh, and that on which any other name but God's hath been invocated. But he who is forced by necessity, not lusting, nor returning to transgress, it shall be no crime in him if he eat of those things, for God is gracious and merciful.

Hilali/Khan
He has forbidden you only the Maytatah (dead animals), and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that which is slaughtered as a scrifice for others than Allah (or has been slaughtered for idols, etc., on which Allahs Name has not been mentioned while slaughtering). But if one is forced by necessity without wilful disobedience nor transgressing due limits, then there is no sin on him. Truly, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Malik
He has forbidden you to eat dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which any name other than Allah has been invoked; but if someone is compelled by absolute necessity, intending neither to sin nor to transgress, they shall incur no sin. Surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Maulana Ali
He has forbidden you only what dies of itself, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that over which any other (name) than (that of) Allah has been invoked. Then whoever is driven by necessity, not desiring, nor exceeding the limit, no sin is upon him. Surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

QXP
He has forbidden you only carrion (any animal that dies by itself), and blood, and swine flesh, and anything --- (not just meat) --- that has been dedicated to any other than Allah (be it any person, an ancestor, a saint, an idol or a tomb (53)). But, he who is compelled out of necessity, neither craving nor indulging in excess, it is not a dragging violation for him. Behold, Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Sarwar
God has forbidden you to eat that which has not been properly slaughtered, blood, pork, and the flesh of any animal which has not been consecrated with a mention of the Name of God. However, in an emergency, without the intention of transgression or repeating transgression, one will not be considered to have committed a sin. God is All-forgiving and All-merciful.

You are telling us that they have ALL got it wrong? And YOU have it correct? What is your source of your translation?

unknownuser

PEACE, JAXAL,

Looooooooooooooooolllllllllllllllll you remind me of an experiance i had when i was in Abu Dhabi. So you are telling me, that all the arab translators, whose first language is arabic, who spent half their life studing the Quran, who spend time studying Aramaic and who have translated this word to be flesh of pig, YOU are telling me that they are wrong? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL HHAHAHAHHHAHAHHA OH MANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN. Let us see

It is obvious that you will not believe me, so, why don't you ask Growyourself, Layth, Zenje, Nabi, Idol, Wakas, Ayman, Idris and others, how many words they've discovered, translated by the Arabic experts, which have been mistranslated by these same experts. roll

unknownuser

PB,

You have the integrity of haggis.

Reply to MY last post, directed to YOUR last post to me, instead of running away.

In the thread Pork & Logic, it has been conclusively shown according to Qur'aanic context, arabic language, grammar, and logic, that lahma khinzeerin as used in 6145 means meat of pig.

Following is the link

http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2074&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=150

I was not aware of this thread, however, I did a cursory examination of it, but found no mention of ayats 6146, 53 or 55 in relation to understanding khanzerin. These ayats are important in understanding the was is being mistranslated as swine. You and Tanveer, continue to translate "lahma khinzerin" to mean the flesh of swine, this is your error and why you continue to believe that I am not answering your question. There is no pig being mentioned in the above ayat, it is simply a mistranslation. The ayat is saying to avoid flesh which appears ill-seeming/khanzerin. Many homeless people, because they are driven by necessity, frequently eat khanzerin--ill-seeming flesh.

WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING 6145 ???

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.

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.

The "AND" at the beginning of 6146 shows that both 6145 and 6146 are connected and 6146 is a CONTINUATION of 6145. In 6145 Allah tells explicitly what things are haram for all mankind, including Jews, and in 6146 He tells us what things are ADDITIONALLY haram for Jews only.

If I'm understanding you and Tanveer correctly, it apears that you are you are claiming that, when ayat 6146 was revealed, it is stating that the Jews have other restrictions placed on them in addition to what is placed on mankind in general, am I correct? Well, if that is in fact yours and Tanveers's position, then, Allah, has given the Jews and mankind two different set of laws to follow right into the present day. How is that possible? Your position cannot be correct, because unless I'm mistaken, ayat 6146 isn't talking about the Jews in the present tense, but the PAST tense. If this weren't true, then, the following ayat makes absolutely no sense at all

350 And a verifier of that which is before me of the Taurat and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord therefore be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me.

Remember, ayat 6146 informs us of what Allah made haram for the Jews to eat, there simply is no questioning this fact. Now, ayat 350 informs us that, part of what Allah had made haram for the Jews to eat, Jesus was given the authority to make part of it halal. So, if ayat 6146 is in the present tense how could Jesus make lawful part of what was forbidden to the Jews? Ayat 6146 was revealed long after the death of Jesus...yes?

So, the question before us now is...is ayat 6146, regarding the Jews and prohibited food, referring to their past or to their present?

Looking forward to your reply. Don't get cold feet now and run off. lol

savage_carrot

PB,

Once again, you disregard my post, fear not however, I shall bring it to your attention as many times as you disregard it.

I was not aware of this thread, however, I did a cursory examination of it, but found no mention of ayats 6146, 53 or 55 in relation to understanding khanzerin.

In your cursory examination, you probably have not noticed that the only way to ALLOW pig meat, is to change the meaning of (lahma) khinzeerin to whatever your heart desires. Not flawed roundabout arguments, but the word itself.

These ayats are important in understanding the was is being mistranslated as swine. You and Tanveer, continue to translate "lahma khinzerin" to mean the flesh of swine, this is your error and why you continue to believe that I am not answering your question. There is no pig being mentioned in the above ayat, it is simply a mistranslation. The ayat is saying to avoid flesh which appears ill-seeming/khanzerin. Many homeless people, because they are driven by necessity, frequently eat khanzerin--ill-seeming flesh.

YOU are the one saying lahma khinzeerin is NOT pig meat. So why should we change the meaning to understand the verses of the quran when they are just fine as they are, inclusive of the word lahma khinzeerin meaning pig meat. Our 'error' does not result in contradictions and redundancies and absurd illogical situations.

If it's a mistranslation then ONLY deal with the mistranslation of the word itself. Stop obfuscating the point with convoluted explanations of if this is this than that is that...because as we've seen in my previous post they don't hold any water.

Address the mistranslation point in my previous posts, or let me bring it home to you in summary

Mistranslation

SC Khanazeer = pig , Lahma Khinzeerin = pig meat.

PB Khinzerin = ill seeming behaviour? , Lahma Khinzeerin = ill seeming meat

Metaphors are gauged by CONTEXT and NOT the LITERAL words used...if the word used Khinzerin literally means ill seeming behaviour, then we are not supposed to be eating the meat of the ill seeming behaviour in 6145.

Khanazeer in your 'main entry' is itself comprised of 'bad' and 'see'...so Where is behaviour? You can either take "I see it bad" OR "proud" OR "stubborn", even "ill seeming" if you want. What you CAN'T do is put behaviour in the same word comprising of khinz + ara as well. Unless you are telling us it can be broken down into THREE parts, in which case i would ask you to provide your dictionary PROOF.

Please tell me which part of khanazeer in arabic is referring to behaviour ( as in the word in 560). We know what khinz is and what ara is, where is the word for behaviour in the same 'compound' word?

If I'm understanding you and Tanveer correctly, it apears that you are you are claiming that, when ayat 6146 was revealed, it is stating that the Jews have other restrictions placed on them in addition to what is placed on mankind in general, am I correct? Well, if that is in fact yours and Tanveers's position, then, Allah, has given the Jews and mankind two different set of laws to follow right into the present day. How is that possible?

No, cursory examination does not suit...when ayat 6146 WAS revealed God was telling us the additional restrictions as a punishment placed on them IN THE PAST, OR BEFORE REVELATION OF THE QURAN. It is telling us the truth of what took place in the PAST as you can see in the verse itself. If mankind believes in the quran, then the restrictions on the BELIEVERS apply ONLY. This makes mankind ONE after the revelation of the quran, IF they believe in it. So how do you have two different sets of laws to follow in the quran if you ONLY believe in the quran?

Remember, ayat 6146 informs us of what Allah made haram for the Jews to eat, there simply is no questioning this fact.

Again, you FORGET the verse before it and what it says in 6146 itself as PUNISHMENT meaning ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS. You CANNOT take one verse seperate from the quran and say this is it, these were the ONLY restrictions.

Does 6146 tell us of the ONLY restrictions on the Jews?

Everything is lawful UNLESS forbidden

51 O you who believe, you shall fulfill your covenants. Permitted for you to eat are the livestock, except those specifically prohibited herein. You shall not permit hunting throughout Hajj pilgrimage. GOD decrees whatever He wills.

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;

O you who believe, eat of the good things We have provided for you, and be thankful to God; if it is Him you serve.

If one takes the latter two (55 and/or 2172) seperately from restrictions(exceptions) provided in al quran, then it implies NO restrictions.

If one keeps restrictions in mind provided by al quran, then ALL food is lawful UNLESS forbidden.

With this in mind, leave the MEANING of lahma khinzeerin ASIDE and address your so called 'logical' argument part that falls flat when lahma khinzeerin is mentioned as being FORBIDDEN in 6145 and 6146 tells us of ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS...not the ONLY restrictions as This was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion" details.

6145 Say, "I do not find in the revelations given to me any food that is prohibited for any eater except (1) carrion, (2) running blood, (3) the meat of pigs, for it is contaminated, and (4) the meat of animals blasphemously dedicated to other than GOD." If one is forced (to eat these), without being deliberate or malicious, then your Lord is Forgiver, Most 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.

If one assumes that 6146 were the ONLY restrictions imposed on jews, what is the meaning of "This was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion"? Because that is what is telling us that it is ADDITIONAL. That is why those restrictions are DIFFERENT from 6145 and called PUNISHMENT. That logically concludes that 6146 is a COUNTINUATION of 6145 with ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS.

Additionally, if one believes that those were the ONLY restrictions on the jewish people then, they were allowed EVERYTHING except animals with claws, and the fat of cattle and sheep...this is far less than what we've been forbidden...according to this, we must be the ones who are being PUNISHED with ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS. How does it possibly make sense to get away with LESS and called being PUNISHED than those said NOT to be punished at ALL?

IF the restrictions on jews in 6146 were the ONLY restrictions then

Jews were restricted = a) animals with claws b) fat of sheep c) fat of oxen.

Believers are restricted = a) blood b) dead meat c) lahma khinzeerin d)that which is dedicated to other than God e) that which has been strangled f) that which has been beaten to death g) that which has fallen from a height h) that which has been gored i) that which the wild animals have eaten from except what you managed to rescue j) what has been slaughtered on alters k) what you divide by the arrows of chance.

(53) Thus the ONLY restrictions the jews had were 3 (which now is claimed to be even further reduced with NO ayat to back it up) and the believers have 11.

Hmmm...what did the ayat 6146 say? How does it possibly make sense to get away with LESS and called being PUNISHED than those said NOT to be punished at ALL?

The only conclusion that follows logically is that these were ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS and a COUNTINUATION of 6145.

Jesus was given the authority to make part of it halal.

Can you please post the ayat where jesus uses this authority and what he uses it on so you can stop conjecturing? Thanks!

unknownuser

Peace Priest Bokmei,

You still have not answered my questions directed to you, which is being discourteous, rude, and disrespectful. If you do not have the courtesy to answer my questions directed to you, time and again, how can you expect me to answer you ? I will repost my questions and once you answer them, I will be glad to comment

Given that 6145 lists food made haram for mankind, and that mankind includes Jews, Why do you keep ignoring what Allah EXPLICITLY makes forbidden for Jews in 6145 ?
The "AND" at the beginning of 6146 clearly shows that 6146 is a CONTINUATION of 6145, so you cannot isolate 6146 from 6145. Why do you keep ignoring the "AND" at the beginning of 6146 and keep isolating 6146 from 6145 ? Also as Nadia pointed out, the phrase "that is a punishment for their rebellion" in 6146 also clearly shows that 6146 is a CONTINUATION of 6145, because the restrictions in 6146 are IN ADDITION TO the restrictions in 6145 for Jews. Do you mean to say that the foods mentioned in 6146 are the ONLY foods made haram for Jews ? So before their punishment ALL food was halal to them ?

Why do you keep rejecting parts of the word of Allah (e.g. 6145) ?

1338 And those to whom We have previously given the Scripture rejoice at what has been sent down to you, but there are some of the groups that reject parts of it.

Given that Allah, in 6146, does not forbid the Jews to eat dead meat, blood, lahma khinzeerin, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah", hence, according to your twisted logic it was lawful to them, and ayat 55 states that their food and our food are halal for each other, dead meat, blood, lahma khinzeerin, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah", then has to be halal for mankind. But then that would contradict 6145 where Allah has clearly made dead meat, blood, lahma khinzeerin and "what is dedicated to other than Allah" HARAM FOR MANKIND, WHICH INCLUDES JEWS. How will you explain that ?

Also, as EVERYONE has noticed, you have blatantly ignored Nadia's post and have completely eluded replying to her points, just like you have completely ignored my questions. So who is running ?

Looking forward to your replies.

unknownuser

PEACE, TANVEER,

WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING 6145 ???

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.

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.

The "AND" at the beginning of 6146 shows that both 6145 and 6146 are connected and 6146 is a CONTINUATION of 6145. In 6145 Allah tells explicitly what things are haram for all mankind, including Jews, and in 6146 He tells us what things are ADDITIONALLY haram for Jews only.

Tanveer, you and SC, ducked the following VERY important information...why?

If I'm understanding you and SC, correctly, it apears that you are you are claiming that, when ayat 6146 was revealed, it is stating that the Jews have other restrictions placed on them in addition to what is placed on mankind in general, am I correct? Well, if that is in fact yours and SC's position, then, Allah, has given the Jews and mankind two different set of laws to follow right into the present day. How is that possible? Your position cannot be correct, because unless I'm mistaken, ayat 6146 isn't talking about the Jews in the present tense, but the PAST tense. If this weren't true, then, the following ayat makes absolutely no sense at all

350 And a verifier of that which is before me of the Taurat and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord therefore be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me.

Remember, ayat 6146 informs us of what Allah made haram for the Jews to eat, there simply is no questioning this fact. Now, ayat 350 informs us that, part of what Allah had made haram for the Jews to eat, Jesus was given the authority to make part of it halal. So, if ayat 6146 is in the present tense how could Jesus make lawful part of what was forbidden to the Jews? Ayat 6146 was revealed long after the death of Jesus...yes?

So, the question before us now is...is ayat 6146, regarding the Jews and prohibited food, referring to their past or to their present? The tense of ayat 646, is very important to determine, so, is it referring to the past or the present?

Also, as EVERYONE has noticed, you have blatantly ignored Nadia's post and have completely eluded replying to her points, just like you have completely ignored my questions. So who is running ?

Nadia...has made no point yet. I continue to hope though. I'm not running, I'm right here.

Looking forward to your reply.

unknownuser

SC,

The only conclusion that follows logically is that these were ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS and a COUNTINUATION of 6145.

55 This day (all) the good things are allowed to you; and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them...

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.

Let's say, for argument sake that, ayat 6146 is a continuation of ayat 6145. Now, the only animals named in ayat 6146 are the category of animals with claws, oxen, and sheep. There is no controversy regarding the animals mentioned in ayat 6146.
Now, the only category of animals made haram for Jews, which are definitively recorded in Al-Quran, are animals with claws.
If the pig, was in a fact an animal made haram for Jews, a People of the Book, then it would have had to have claws per ayat 6146.
Now, given that pigs don't have claws, it could not have possibly come under the category of prohibited animals of the Jews, hence, it was halal for them.
Now, given that pigs weren't prohibited to the Jews, per ayat 6146 , 55 makes perfect sense, hence, their food and out food are halal for each other.
Given point 5, khinzerin, in ayat 6145 cannot mean pig either, otherwise, it would contradict 55 and 6146.
Ayat 6146 is not a continuation of ayat 645, relative to, the prohibited foods to the Jews. Allah, never says to the Jews..." I now make pigs, in addition to animals with claws and the fat of of oxen and sheep, haram for you".
The question that now comes to mind is...was pig haram for Noah, Abraham, Lot, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, and their respective peoples? If not, did Allah simply allow them to eat foul meat, only to later make it haram? Moses and Aaron were righteous men, were they also forbidden to eat pig? If it was haram for the aforemention people, where does Allah state this in Al-Quran and, what makes it haram for later people and not the former, and when does this occur?

Tanveer, feel free to chime in...she's going to need your assistance here.

Looking forward to your reply.

Jaxal

SaLaM PB

It is obvious that you will not believe me, so, why don't you ask Growyourself, Layth, Zenje, Nabi, Idol, Wakas, Ayman, Idris and others, how many words they've discovered, translated by the Arabic experts, which have been mistranslated by these same experts. Rolling Eyes

Why dont you let ME be the judge of that. The only thing you can say which i wont believe is , if you say that it came to you in a dream or you were sitting on a bench reading the morning newspaper and suddenly you had an epiphiny Loooooooolllll. Other than that, i will belive pretty much what you say. So , what is the source of your translation?

yfn123

Peace,

Lets not needlessly complicate and obusfucate a VERY simple concept and the clear verses of the quran. Let's cut to the chase.

Everything is lawful UNLESS forbidden

51 O you who believe, you shall fulfill your covenants. Permitted for you to eat are the livestock, except those specifically prohibited herein. You shall not permit hunting throughout Hajj pilgrimage. GOD decrees whatever He wills.

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;

O you who believe, eat of the good things We have provided for you, and be thankful to God; if it is Him you serve.

If one takes the latter two seperately from restrictions(exceptions) provided in al quran, then it implies NO restrictions.

If one keeps restrictions in mind provided by al quran, then ALL food is lawful UNLESS forbidden.

But 55 says "the good things have been made lawful to you" and 2172 says "eat of the good things". If "ALL food is lawful", then why does 55 and 2172 mention "good things"?

Anwar Azim

unknownuser

PEACE, JAXAL,

So, what is the source of your translation?

Al-Quran and The Dictionary of the Holy Quran, by Omar Abdul Mannan.

Jaxal

SaLaM PB

Fair enough. Can i ask you for a favour? i was trying to find a link to his dictonary online. IF you have it, can you please give it to me?

Now, if you believe that khanzeeren translate into unclean, rotten or whatever it is u twist it out to be, can you back this up using any other verse which uses the word khanzeeren to show uncleanliness, rotten or whatever you think it?

savage_carrot

Peace Anwar,

But 55 says "the good things have been made lawful to you" and 2172 says "eat of the good things". If "ALL food is lawful", then why does 55 and 2172 mention "good things"?

Good and bad is relative UNLESS specified with a standard...Or in another way...what is forbidden is specified to you, make up your mind to the rest.