Is Swine Hallal

unknownuser

PEACE, TAY and ANWAR,

Thanks to you both for your comments regarding SM.

Btw, are you guys going to remain onlookers in this debate or are you going to jump in...one way or the other?

Peace.

savage_carrot

PB,

Well, it looks like quadrupeds don't have claws, eh?, hence, not forbidden to the Jews. Given the above ayat and definitions then, pigs, come under the class of lawful animal--quadrupeds.

What was my point in the post above good priest? Was I telling you that quadrupeds have CLAWS?!?!? Was I telling you that pigs have CLAWS? lol

Perhaps you would like to look at my post again? In case it was NOT clear, it was an illustration of a rule which is 'all food lawful unless prohibited by restrictions'. These restrictions then specify what is in particular prohibited.

Well, if you want to agree that the Jews were not forbidden to eat pig, you still have a major problem, to wit Ayat 55 tells us that...the food of the people of the Book is lawful to us and vice versa. Well, with this in mind then, what does Al-Quran tell us about lawful food and lawful food of the Jews? Simply this, Allah, has made quadrupeds lawful for all to eat. The pig is, without doubt,...a quadruped and, per ayat 6146, is also clawless, hence, the Jews, were never forbidden, by Allah anyway, to eat it.

Already explained time and time again, do you even read my posts? Or is it a 'cursory examination'?

Now, given that Allah says their food is halal to us and given that the clawless quarduped pig was not haram for them, if khinzerin means pig, then ayats 51 and 53, are in contradiction with 55. Remember this as well, Allah, in regard to the haram food of Jews says..."haram for them were the animals with claws". Allah, makes haram an entire category of animals. If pig is haram for us to eat, why then, did Allah simply not say...the pig is forbidden to eat, period?

Please respond to the points in my post and in answer to the question italized, Allah wanted to forbid the meat of pig obviously roll

Now, ALL four-footed animals are halal, except with the exceptions named The ayat, as you can see, makes no mention of...PARTS of the four-footed animal being haram, but the four-footed quadruped/animal(s) in total being haram. Now, the question becomes...what four footed animal(s)/quadruped(s) are not halal? Keep in mind that, ayat 53 says LAHMA KHINZERIN/THE FLESH OF SWINE. Flesh of pig, as you agreed to earlier, is a PARTICULAR PART of the pig, hence, the animal in total cannot be haram. If the animal is not haram in total, then 53 contradicts 51

51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you,

Quadrupeds are lawful except that which is recited to you. Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions. The restrictions specify what is in particular prohibited.

I'm still waiting for a clear and coherent Quranic explanation from you and Tanveer on the following

I'm still waiting for the rebuttal to my posts.

Jaxal

SaLaM Danish and Tay

SwedenMajidah is on the spot here. That is exactly what he is doing. He is completely ignorant of the fact that verse 2.173 is prohibiting pig to all man kind. I asked him for his source and he gives me a dictonary that i cant even find online. He is simply arguing for the sake of arguing. And what SM said about him i agree with her. This WAS an interesting thread. Now its entertainment where PB is the star of the hour http//www.geocities.com/bigjaxal/s1.gif

savage_carrot

Peace all,

To all, let's stop with the disputes. PB has presented an argument, let's discuss it? We cannot seriously know why anyone is doing what they do, so let's leave aside why. He has a right to present his argument, we all do. What we do next is discuss it, and see if that leads to a satisfactory conclusion. )

unknownuser

SC,

Let's step back for a moment and agree on a couple of things

given the definition of quadruped and ayat 6146, it is clear the Jews were not forbidden to eat pig nor was humanity. Agreed?
the pig, as a quadruped, is halal for mankind, except--its skin/flesh/lahma. Agreed?

Perhaps you would like to look at my post again? In case it was NOT clear, it was an illustration of a rule which is 'all food lawful unless prohibited by restrictions'. These restrictions then specify what is in particular prohibited...

You did not answer the following questions, please do so.

Now, given that Allah says the food of the People of the Book is halal for us and given that the clawless quarduped pig was not haram for them, if khinzerin means pig, then ayats 51 and 53, are in contradiction with 55. Remember this as well, Allah, in regard to the haram food of Jews says..."haram for them were the animals with claws". Allah, makes haram an entire category of animals (quadrupeds with claws.).

If pig, as a quadruped, is haram for us to eat, why, then, did Allah simply not say...the pig, in its entirety, is forbidden to eat, and be done with it?
If Allah meant only for us to abstain from the "flesh of the "pig", ostensibly per ayat 53, why, then, does ayat 51 say The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...? Ayat 51 is speaking of a whole animal/quadruped, while ayat 53, is referring to a particular part of an quadruped. This is an obvious discrepancy. You must clear this up, as it is absolutely pertinent to your assertion.
It is apparent now that the quadruped--the pig was never haram for the Jews nor for Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Israel, Joseph and all of their peoples, as well as, humanity at large. This being the case, why, all of a sudden, is the pig now dirty, filthy, foul, haram quadruped? Why would Allah allow all of those righteous Messengers, Prophets, and righteous people, for all of those ages, eat a dirty, filthy, foul animal? If the pig as a whole or its flesh in particular, was unclean at the time of the Last Messenger, then it must have been unclean before his time as well. You must answer this question.

Remeber this as well the foods made haram to the Jews, were not because these animals and/or its parts were inherently not good for them, they were made haram as a punishment. Nowhere does Allah arbitrarily restrict any food stuff from mankind nor has He created any animal and said..."do not eat this animal, because it is by its nature it is haram for you".

What quadrupeds are recited to us which are not allowed to us? Ayat 51, if translated correctly, says quadrupeds, plural, and not quadruped singular, hence, the pig, must not be the only disallowed quadruped. What quadrupeds is this ayat referring to? You must clear this up, as it is absolutely pertinent to your assertion.

51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...

You said "Quadrupeds are lawful except that which is recited to you. Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions. The restrictions specify what is in particular prohibited." In the above ayat, Allah, uses the term quadruped as a whole. He makes no such statement in ayat 51 that He restricted any part of any quadruped. Your response is nothing less that an extrapolation.

Now, ALL four-footed animals are halal, except with the exceptions named The ayat, as you can see, makes no mention of...PARTS of the four-footed animal being haram, but the four-footed quadruped/animal(s) in total being haram. Now, the question becomes...what four footed animal(s)/quadruped(s) are not halal? Keep in mind that, ayat 53 says LAHMA KHINZERIN/THE FLESH OF SWINE. Flesh of pig, as you agreed to earlier, is a PARTICULAR PART of the pig, hence, the animal in total cannot be haram. If the animal is not haram in total, then 53 contradicts 51

You've got alot of clearing up to do. Why do you continue to skip question #3? Please answer it and the others.

Tay

Peace All,

Sweden Majidah, you stated

But I can leave if you wish that so very much, i will not disturb you sensitive Americans

It is not my place to tell anyone to stay or leave, nor was that my intention. What I wish is for folks, including yourself, to cease with the personal insults and the out of line comments and stick to debating. You can do whatever you want to do. But as your Muslim brother, I feel it is my responsibility to let you know when I think you're out of line. Take it as you will.

Jaxal, you stated

SwedenMajidah is on the spot here. That is exactly what he is doing. He is completely ignorant of the fact that verse 2.173 is prohibiting pig to all man kind. I asked him for his source and he gives me a dictonary that i cant even find online. He is simply arguing for the sake of arguing. And what SM said about him i agree with her. This WAS an interesting thread. Now its entertainment where PB is the star of the hour

Jax, you can agree with whomever you choose. Personally, I'm staying out of this debate. But I will not stand by and watch silently when someone accuses someone else of not being a muslim and "playing God".
I'm sorry if that's ok with you. It's not ok with me.

Priest, I echo Danish's comments in that I am still on the fence regarding this issue.

Nadia, you stated

To all, let's stop with the disputes. PB has presented an argument, let's discuss it? We cannot seriously know why anyone is doing what they do, so let's leave aside why. He has a right to present his argument, we all do. What we do next is discuss it, and see if that leads to a satisfactory conclusion.

Beautifully said! wink

Peace,
Tay

unknownuser

Peace PRIEST_BOKMEI and others,

It goes without saying that, you possess great skill for articulation, coherency, summary and organization. With this acknowledged, I'm looking forward to, pro OR con, your conclusions of this debate.

Thanks for the compliments there, Priest, in good faith. With strong arguments presented by Nadia, Tanveer and ofcouse yourself on the other side, I?m neither pro nor con at this moment. I shall render my thoughts, once I grasp the contextual understanding of the words khanzeer and kirada to mean other than pigs and apes applicable to Quranic verses and via ongoing discussions. Perhaps you and others can support me in finding answers to the following questions

What other meanings does the Arabic word ?kirada? carries besides apes?
Does ape and monkey mean the same in Arabic?
Would the family of mammals related to pigs, such as a hog, boar, guinea pig, warthog, etc., be considered forbidden as well?

As a side note, we know that khanzeer doesn?t specifically mean a pig and carries other definitions such as ill-seeming, bad, filthy, etc., hence ?lahma kanzeer? can possibly mean an ?ill-seeming/bad/filthy meat?. Anyone disagree on this? I am simply considering relevant points to support/back-up the verses in question.

Jaxal

SaLaM Danish

To say " You are acting like a pig" does not mean the person is now down on the ground on his hands nd knees acting like a pig. A pig is a filthy animal. Thats what the person is acting like. A PIG. Khanzeer has one meaning. Pig. If God wanted to say ill-seeming or unclean there ARE others word for it. But God kept it to the point. He turned them into apes and pigs.

The phrase "walahma alkhinzeeri" literally means and meat of the pig. To be more precise meat of pig. Lets say for the sake of it, khanzeer means "ill-seeming / bad / filth", then the translation of walahma alkhinzeeri would become and meat of ill-seeming / filth / bad. Khanzeer is a noun. Bad / Filth / ill-seeming are not nouns. Pig is a noun. Calling someone a pig will mean that the person is acting like a pig. Pig is a noun. Bad / filth / ill-seeming are not. God is mentioning 2 animals here. Ape and Pig. If one is a noun, so is the other one. God is not going to use one metaphore and one literal. Either both metaphore or both literal becoz God says his words are clear.

So far PB is running around in circles avoiding many questions and points. How can someone ask SM to refute whats being said here PB himself cant do it. Lets be fair here.

savage_carrot

Peace PB,

I did answer your questions, in my previous posts, which is more than you did for me.

If pig, as a quadruped, is haram for us to eat, why, then, did Allah simply not say...the pig, in its entirety, is forbidden to eat, and be done with it?

Ask Allah why he wanted to forbid the meat of pig.

If Allah meant only for us to abstain from the "flesh of the "pig", ostensibly per ayat 53, why, then, does ayat 51 say The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...? Ayat 51 is speaking of a whole animal/quadruped, while ayat 53, is referring to a particular part of an quadruped. This is an obvious discrepancy. You must clear this up, as it is absolutely pertinent to your assertion.
What quadrupeds are recited to us which are not allowed to us? Ayat 51, if translated correctly, says quadrupeds, plural, and not quadruped singular, hence, the pig, must not be the only disallowed quadruped. What quadrupeds is this ayat referring to? You must clear this up, as it is absolutely pertinent to your assertion.

I cleared this up here

Perhaps you would like to look at my post again? In case it was NOT clear, it was an illustration of a rule which is 'all food lawful unless prohibited by restrictions'. These restrictions then specify what is in particular prohibited.

51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you,

Quadrupeds are lawful except that which is recited to you. Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions. The restrictions specify what is in particular prohibited.

In addition to the above, since you say that the whole pig is halal, and Allah must mean an entire named animal like the pig then

None of the restrictions tell us of an entire named animal/quadraped restricted. It's either don't eat animals which are dead/strangled etc (whole/meat/part generic animal), don't eat part of an animal etc (pig/blood). Don't eat stuff dedicated to another/divided by chance etc (whole generic animal) and don't eat that which has been attacked by wild animals unless you can save it before it dies (detailed restriction of generic animal, don't quite know how to categorize it ? ). That puts the meat of pig completely in context to the other restrictions.

1a) Thus, to you this verse and the statement in this verse 'except that which is prohibited' would be completely retarded, because then you can't justify a named animal restricted entirely anyway, which works completely against what you say it means and further, tells us that God arbitrarily put that in when it doesn't mean anything. The only obvious solution to this retarded statement then is that "Quadrupeds are lawful except that which is recited to you. Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions. The restrictions specify what is in particular prohibited." This is exactly what the verse is saying itself, NOT your supposed contradiction of whole named animal.

It is apparent now that the quadruped--the pig was never haram for the Jews nor for Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Israel, Joseph and all of their peoples, as well as, humanity at large. This being the case, why, all of a sudden, is the pig now dirty, filthy, foul, haram quadruped?

No, it is NOT apparent whether OR not the pig was haram for these people. Thats just conjecture. You might as well ask, why did Allah not send the quran earlier? Why did Allah allow us to marry two sisters in the past in 423? The verse says 'except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful;-'. You might as well ask, why were we not permitted to approach the women on the nights of fasting in the past as in 2187? The verse says 'but He turned to you and forgave you; so now associate with them, and seek what Allah Hath ordained for you'. We don't know what these people adam etc were allowed OR not allowed unless we are told of it in the quran. We should STOP conjecturing about these questions which are red herrings.

Please respond to my previous posts?

edited to add/correct

Thor

There is two parts to this argument

1)Logical argument Do the verses of the quran as a whole prohibit "lahma khanzeeran"?

2)Definitional argument What is the definition of "lahma khanzeeran"?

Lets deal with the logical argument first.

On the first page of this thread PB made the following statement which I whole heartedly agree with

O.k., let me try it from this angle. You will agree that Al-Quran, per ayat 2185, was sent to all of mankind for guidance; there is no other book or books for mankinds guidance. Included in mankind are the Jews. I'm certain that you also agree with that. Now, although ayat 6147 does not mention the Jews specifically, ayat 6147 does mention what is haram for mankind--the Jews included, thus, the things made haram in ayat 6147 are haram for the Jews as well. I'm certain you must agree with this also. Also keep in mind that, it would be very cumbersome to list all that is halal in Al-Quran, hence, Allah, simply names what is haram and what is not haram is halal. With this in mind then there is no contradiction between ayats 6146-7 and 148 at all.

Although the numbering of the verses is a bit off, (I take it that the verses actually being refernced are 6145-147), I must still thank PB for bringing to a close any logical confusion in this thread so early on. It is clear from the verses, and from PB's analysis above, that God first tells us what is prohibited for ALL MANKIND (including jews) in 6145. (i.e. carrion, blood poured forth, lahma khanzeeran, and meat upon which a name has been invoked, other than Allah's). And then he mentions what was prohibited for the Jews specifically in 6146.

He correctly points out that there is no contradiction in the above two verses. I would add to this that there is no contradiction with verse 55 either.

"55 - YOUSIF ALI 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....."

Since we have already established that the Jewish restrictions mentioned in 6146 are in addition to what is prohibited to all mankind. It is only logical to conclude that everything that the Jews can eat must fall within what the rest of mankind can eat. Therefore all that is lawful to them has to be lawful to the rest of mankind. No contradictions.

At this point, what should also be abundantly clear (to every one that is taking all the quranic verses with regards to food into account), is that there is no way out of the restrictions on food imposed in 6145.

Thus concludes the logical argument "Lahma khanzeeran is prohibited to All Mankind"

Regarding the definitional argument What is the definition 'Lahma Khanzeeran'?. I am no expert in Arabic. I have read the extensive arguments on the definition, and have my own personal opinion on what it means. I believe we are all free to draw our own conlcusions on definitions as they are, to a degree, subjective.

However, I sincerely hope we can agree that the logical argument is closed.

Best Regards,

Thor

savage_carrot

Peace Danish and Tay,

Tay Np, learning from the master is all wink

Danish

What other meanings does the Arabic word ?kirada? carries besides apes?
Does ape and monkey mean the same in Arabic?
Would the family of mammals related to pigs, such as a hog, boar, guinea pig, warthog, etc., be considered forbidden as well?

I wish I had Lane's with me to assist, but I don't these days, Wakas has a site with the root meanings in case we need to check though. Personally, like I mentioned, if the meaning is metaphorical then the word used is still literal and metaphorical is gauged from context. This ensures integrity of the word being used consistently. The meanings extracted from the same literal words can be different depending on context.

I would not hesistate to say though that whatever needed to be forbidden, is clearly and precisely mentioned as to. I understand your point though, but as long as Khinzeer means pig OR can mean pig, there is no confusion. Btw guinea pigs are not pigs at all but rodents...and the pig family is

http//www.geocities.com/Paris/9896/piggy3.htm (first link off google, sorry i could find better)

Just thought I'd add another in case you had questions about aardvarks

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aardvark

It mentions they are not closely related to pigs.

This further specifies what all the pigs are i.e, all members of the pig family. All in all, I think we should use research and common sense when trying to distinguish between what the pig family includes and what doesn't...and to add further God isn't going to hold us responsible to what we don't know. Restricted food is lawful under special circumstances which include 'unless we are being deliberately malicious'...so we should research to our best capability and leave the rest to God.

As a side note, we know that khanzeer doesn?t specifically mean a pig and carries other definitions such as ill-seeming, bad, filthy, etc., hence ?lahma kanzeer? can possibly mean an ?ill-seeming/bad/filthy meat?. Anyone disagree on this? I am simply considering relevant points to support/back-up the verses in question.

In my view, when it works fine as pig without any inconsistencies and redundancies, then there is no need to look for something else. But if Lahma Khinzeerin can mean ?ill-seeming/bad/filthy meat?, it is already in addition called that in the verse as 'rijsun'. As in my post

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?

In the end it's upto people to choose what they think is the best meaning for lahma khinzeerin. Thats imo, is the only way to allow pig meat. Change the meaning.

I'm not writing this down in word, thus the frequent editions to add...

edited to add

yfn123

Peace,

PEACE, TAY and ANWAR,
Thanks to you both for your comments regarding SM.
Btw, are you guys going to remain onlookers in this debate or are you going to jump in...one way or the other? )
Peace.

I think I will be on the sidelines, but might occassionally jump in. )>-

Anwar Azim

savage_carrot

Peace,

Since we have already established that the Jewish restrictions mentioned in 6146 are in addition to what is prohibited to all mankind. It is only logical to conclude that everything that the Jews can eat must fall within what the rest of mankind can eat. Therefore all that is lawful to them has to be lawful to the rest of mankind. No contradictions.

Very nicely put! The rest of the post is equally concise.

However, I sincerely hope we can agree that the logical argument is closed.

I agree, the only way to allow pig meat is to change the meaning.

unknownuser

PEACE, SC,

You did not answer the following two questions. I would appreciate a yes or no answer along with an explanation

given the definition of quadruped and ayat 6146, it is clear the Jews were not forbidden to eat pig nor was humanity. Agreed?
the pig, as a quadruped, is halal for mankind, except--its skin/flesh/lahma. Agreed?

Looking forward to your reply.

unknownuser

it is clear the Jews were not forbidden to eat pig nor was humanity. Agreed?

What is clear, is that you can't read !!

Lev 117 "And the swine, because he parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, but cheweth not the cud, he is unclean unto you"

Lev 118 "Of their flesh ye SHALL NOT eat, and their carcasses ye shall not touch; they are unclean unto you"

unknownuser

PEACE, SC,

PBM 1. If pig, as a quadruped, is haram for us to eat, why, then, did Allah simply not say...the pig, in its entirety, is forbidden to eat, and be done with it?

Ask Allah why he wanted to forbid the meat of pig.

2533 And no question/arguement do they bring to you but We reveal to you the truth and the best explanation (thereof).

Sorry, but per the above ayat, your response will not fly today. So, I don't need to ask Allah anything, because Allah gave us Al-Quran for our guidance . In order to fulfill its purpose for guidance, Al-Quran, must be a book of incontestable facts/knowledge and devoid of opinion and discrepancy. This question before has a definite answer to it, otherwise, Al-Quran cannot be the book of Guidance (guidance without doubt), as Allah claims it is. Please, per Al-Quran, answer the question now.

PBM 2. If Allah meant only for us to abstain from the "flesh of the "pig", ostensibly per ayat 53, why, then, does ayat 51 say The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...? Ayat 51 is speaking of a whole animal/quadruped, while ayat 53, is referring to a particular part of an quadruped. This is an obvious discrepancy. You must clear this up, as it is absolutely pertinent to your assertion.

PBM 4. What quadrupeds are recited to us which are not allowed to us? Ayat 51, if translated correctly, says quadrupeds, plural, and not quadruped singular, hence, the pig, must not be the only disallowed quadruped. What quadrupeds is this ayat referring to? You must clear this up, as it is absolutely pertinent to your assertion.

SC I cleared this up here

Perhaps you would like to look at my post again? In case it was NOT clear, it was an illustration of a rule which is 'all food lawful unless prohibited by restrictions'. These restrictions then specify what is in particular prohibited.

51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you,

Quadrupeds are lawful except that which is recited to you. Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions. The restrictions specify what is in particular prohibited
.

The ayat, clearly says, quadrupeds and not quadruped. What quadrupeds are disallowed to eat.
You have changed the ayat. The ayat does not say Quadrupeds are lawful except that which is recited to you. Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions". These are YOUR words and not Allah's.
For the ayat to support what you are conjecturing/extrapolating it to mean, it should have read 51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you, except, the part of which has been restricted for you". What, don't you think Allah could not have said that? In the following ayat, Allah, in regard to the Jews, does just that

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.

This ayat states a couple of definitive/incontestable things

A. it makes haram to the Jews every animal with claws.

B. all of the other animals are halal.

c. Allah, only makes haram, respective to the quadruped oxen and sheep, their fat. The oxen and sheep are not haram though.

Based on the above definite Quranic evidence, your "restriction theory" does not hold water. Relative to this debate in general, and in regard to 51 in particular, you are only extrapolating.

Main Entry EXTRAPOLATE to project, extend, or expand (known data or experience) into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of the unknown area.

In addition to the above, since you say that the whole pig is halal, and Allah must mean an entire named animal like the pig then

None of the restrictions tell us of an entire named animal/quadraped restricted.

So, is the pig, as a quadruped, haram or halal? Do you know?

It's either don't eat animals which are dead/strangled etc (whole generic animal), don't eat part of an animal etc (pig/blood). Don't eat stuff dedicated to another/divided by chance etc (whole generic animal) and don't eat that which has been attacked by wild animals unless you can save it before it dies (detailed restriction of generic animal, don't quite know how to categorize it ? ). That puts the meat of pig completely in context to the other restrictions.

The animals restricted eat in the above ayat, are not, by their created nature, haram to eat. They are only haram to eat when they enter into a particualr state/condition. The pig, being a quarduped, and Allah made all quadrupeds halal to eat, to accept your position then, is to say that the lahma of the quadruped pig, by its very created nature, is haram. Is this your position then that, the very created nature of the pigs flesh is unclean? If this is true, then, the flesh of the must have pig has always been, by its created nature unclean, and, if this is the case, why did Allah not make it HARAM for the Jews and ALL of those before them? The only things forbidden them, and only because of their transgressions and not because the animal was by nature unclean, are quadrupeds with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep.

Thus, to you this verse and the statement in this verse 'except that which is prohibited' would be completely retarded, because then you can't justify a named animal restricted entirely anyway, which works completely against what you say it means and further, tells us that God arbitrarily put that in when it doesn't mean anything. The only obvious solution to this retarded statement then is that "Quadrupeds are lawful except that which is recited to you. Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions. The restrictions specify what is in particular prohibited." This is exactly what the verse is saying itself, NOT your supposed contradiction of whole named animal.

Neither you nor I at this time, knows what ayat 51 means. It could be a poor translation or the answer lies elsewhere in Al-Quran. What we do know however is that, Allah, made no quadruped, by nature, as a whole or any of its parts haram, because of it being unhealthy for consumption, except, blood. The Jews already knew it was forbidden to eat blood, dead meat, etc. If this weren't true, then, why would Allah, for ages, allow the righteous to consume unhealthy foods? The additional dietary restrictions were a punishment and not because they were by nature unhealthy for consumption.

PBM 3. It is apparent now that the quadruped--the pig was never haram for the Jews nor for Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Israel, Joseph and all of their peoples, as well as, humanity at large. This being the case, why, all of a sudden, is the pig now dirty, filthy, foul, haram quadruped?

No, it is NOT apparent whether OR not the pig was haram for these people. Thats just conjecture.

Well, if is not apparent, then, you have NO idea whether the quaruped pig, is forbidden in part or as a whole, do you? Yes or no? All you offering is opinion/conjecture. Allah, clearly, in ayat 6146, tells us what animals were haram...those with claws. Do pigs have claws? Well, if they do not, then the quadruped pig...must have been halal for Jews, as well as, mankind in general, then and now.

Looking forward to your reply. No conjectures/extrapolations, thanks.

unknownuser

PEACE, DANISH, THOR and ALL,

Thor, you wrote

1)Logical argument Do the verses of the quran as a whole prohibit "lahma khanzeeran"?

2)Definitional argument What is the definition of "lahma khanzeeran"?

Thank you for your input.

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. pg.166

Let me say this. Per the above definition of khanza, it is clear that it carries two distinct meanings

A. The animal pig.

B. that which looks bad/ill-seeming.

Now, we must conclude that Allah knows this as well, hence, we then need to determine...which of the above definitions is He using in his Quran? It cannot be both, because then that would violate the following ayat

482 Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.

Main Entry DISCREPANT being at variance disagreeing.

53 Forbidden to you (for food) are dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine,

560...those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!"

Now, if khaniza means the literal pig in ayat 53 then it must mean the same thing in, otherwise, a discrepancy occurs. SC, wants us to believe that 53 is literal while 560 is figurative, however, Allah, does not say that 560 is a similitude?, hence, 560, then, must also be literal (so as not to create a discreapancy) Now, how is that possible?! Does Allah actually physically transform human beings into gorillas and hogs?! Just imagine the kind of superstitious craziness which would result from believing that people were actually transformed into apes and pigs! If we can believe that, why can't the Christians and the Nation of Islam, for examples, believe that Allah transformed Himself into a human being! Allah's and His Laws simply do not function like this.

With this in mind then, neither ayat 53 nor ayat 560, is referring to the animal pig at all, hence, no discrepancy. In other words, if khaniza is defined as "that which I see as bad/unseemly", well, that meaning can be applied to both behaviors and material things without being figurative ( thereby obviating any contextual discrepancies as well) or creating a discrepancy between terms. Do you see?

Looking forward to your reply.

savage_carrot

PB,

Why are you regurgitating the same stuff over and over again, when it has been addressed and answered and refuted in my posts? Tell you what, let's condense YET again and you try to answer the points, instead of repeating and rambling yourself.

If pig, as a quadruped, is haram for us to eat, why, then, did Allah simply not say...the pig, in its entirety, is forbidden to eat, and be done with it?

You keep repeating this in the context of why not pig why pig meat. You are told Allah forbade it, additionally you are told Allah in particular forbade pig's meat because it is 'rijsun'. Why the heck are you NOT satisfied? Because it does not suit your agenda, so you will naturally keep on saying WHY, when anyone else can see WHY just by reading the quran.

2533 And no question/arguement do they bring to you but We reveal to you the truth and the best explanation (thereof). Sorry, but per the above ayat, your response will not fly today. So, I don't need to ask Allah anything, because Allah gave us Al-Quran for our guidance . In order to fulfill its purpose for guidance, Al-Quran, must be a book of incontestable facts/knowledge and devoid of opinion and discrepancy. This question before has a definite answer to it, otherwise, Al-Quran cannot be the book of Guidance (guidance without doubt), as Allah claims it is. Please, per Al-Quran, answer the question now.

As I mentioned above, STOP asking unneccesary questions which are ALREADY answered time and time again, rebut the points in my post please roll

PBM 2. If Allah meant only for us to abstain from the "flesh of the "pig", ostensibly per ayat 53, why, then, does ayat 51 say The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...? Ayat 51 is speaking of a whole animal/quadruped, while ayat 53, is referring to a particular part of an quadruped. This is an obvious discrepancy. You must clear this up, as it is absolutely pertinent to your assertion.

Everyone can read you are regurgitating. It has been answered time and time in my posts, YET you can't rebut it so you regurgitate the same questions.

What quadrupeds are recited to us which are not allowed to us? Ayat 51, if translated correctly, says quadrupeds, plural, and not quadruped singular, hence, the pig, must not be the only disallowed quadruped. What quadrupeds is this ayat referring to? You must clear this up, as it is absolutely pertinent to your assertion.

SC I cleared this up here

Quote
Perhaps you would like to look at my post again? In case it was NOT clear, it was an illustration of a rule which is 'all food lawful unless prohibited by restrictions'. These restrictions then specify what is in particular prohibited.

51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you,

Quadrupeds are lawful except that which is recited to you. Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions. The restrictions specify what is in particular prohibited

The ayat, clearly says, quadrupeds and not quadruped. What quadrupeds are disallowed to eat.

Everyone can read you are regurgitating. It has been answered time and time in my posts, YET you can't rebut it so you regurgitate the same questions. The restrictions on quadrupeds are ALREADY given. READ the restrictions. There is NO problem and NO inconsistency. Rebut my points please.

You have changed the ayat. The ayat does not say Quadrupeds are lawful except that which is recited to you. Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions". These are YOUR words and not Allah's.

These ARE Allah's WORDS in the entire quran. Instead of taking one verse out of context and creating LOGICAL ERRORS, that even YOU can't solve, take ALL the verses to UNDERSTAND. Rebut the points instead of regugitation.

For the ayat to support what you are conjecturing/extrapolating it to mean, it should have read 51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you, except, the part of which has been restricted for you". What, don't you think Allah could not have said that? In the following ayat, Allah, in regard to the Jews, does just that

THAT is EXACTLY what the verse says when examined AND put together WITH OTHER VERSES. Please answer me which animal is named to be COMPLETELY and ENTIRELY RESTRICTED because if you CAN'T, then you are saying God has given a retarded statement which you can't JUSTIFY if we take your WRONG interpretation of what God is saying. Who is conjecturing NOW?

This ayat states a couple of definitive/incontestable things

A. it makes haram to the Jews every animal with claws.

B. all of the other animals are halal.

c. Allah, only makes haram, respective to the quadruped oxen and sheep, their fat. The oxen and sheep are not haram though.

Based on the above definite Quranic evidence, your "restriction theory" does not hold water. Relative to this debate in general, and in regard to 51 in particular, you are only extrapolating.

Once again, you are repeating something, which per Thor's post has been proved that you already ACCEPTED the opposite and NOW are arguing for argument's sake. Based on the above you are EXTRAPOLATING and giving WRONG statements/interpretations that you can't JUSTIFY. Please answer me which animal is named to be COMPLETELY and ENTIRELY RESTRICTED in our restrictions because if you CAN'T, then you are saying God has given a retarded statement which you can't JUSTIFY if we take your WRONG interpretation of what God is saying.

In addition to the above, since you say that the whole pig is halal, and Allah must mean an entire named animal like the pig then

None of the restrictions tell us of an entire named animal/quadraped restricted.

So, is the pig, as a quadruped, haram or halal? Do you know?

What the hell? READ my posts will you? The pig meat is restricted in the quadrupeds, as the other restrictions which tell us what is in particular prohibited, in what circumstances etc. There is NO ENTIRE NAMED ANIMAL RESTRICTED FOR US ALL THE TIME. Can I make it any clearer?

The animals restricted eat in the above ayat, are not, by their created nature, haram to eat. They are only haram to eat when they enter into a particualr state/condition. The pig, being a quarduped, and Allah made all quadrupeds halal to eat, to accept your position then, is to say that the lahma of the quadruped pig, by its very created nature, is haram. Is this your position then that, the very created nature of the pigs flesh is unclean? If this is true, then, the flesh of the must have pig has always been, by its created nature unclean, and, if this is the case, why did Allah not make it HARAM for the Jews and ALL of those before them? The only things forbidden them, and only because of their transgressions and not because the animal was by nature unclean, are quadrupeds with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep.

A whole para devoted to conjecture. Well done! Allah clearly tells us what is haram. He calls lahma khinzeerin haram because it is rijsun. End of story. Anything else is CONJECTURE and EXTRAPOLATION.

Neither you nor I at this time, knows what ayat 51 means. It could be a poor translation or the answer lies elsewhere in Al-Quran. What we do know however is that, Allah, made no quadruped, by nature, as a whole or any of its parts haram, because of it being unhealthy for consumption, except, blood. The Jews already knew it was forbidden to eat blood, dead meat, etc. If this weren't true, then, why would Allah, for ages, allow the righteous to consume unhealthy foods? The additional dietary restrictions were a punishment and not because they were by nature unhealthy for consumption.

No, we know what ayat 51 means. Why YOU won't accept it, because it goes against YOUR argument...thus you throw ambiguity in there and claim IGNORANCE of the meaning of a clear verse. The italized statement is WRONG because lahma khinzeerin is also a part of a quadruped and thus IN CONTEXT with the rest. Once again keep asking WHY and conjecturing. I care NOT. What I care about is what is written in the quran, the rest you can argue till the quadrupeds COME HOME.

It is apparent now that the quadruped--the pig was never haram for the Jews nor for Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Israel, Joseph and all of their peoples, as well as, humanity at large. This being the case, why, all of a sudden, is the pig now dirty, filthy, foul, haram quadruped?

Already answered repeatedly. Rebut the points.

Well, if is not apparent, then, you have NO idea whether the quaruped pig, is forbidden in part or as a whole, do you? Yes or no? All you offering is opinion/conjecture. Allah, clearly, in ayat 6146, tells us what animals were haram...those with claws. Do pigs have claws? Well, if they do not, then the quadruped pig...must have been halal for Jews, as well as, mankind in general, then and now.

What comprehension skills! In case it wasn't clear WHEN I answered this BEFORE...The part of the quadruped's are specified in the restrictions. Pig meat is inclusive. What I'm offering is what the quran ALREADY says, it doesn't create logical errors, retarded/absurd statements and redundancies Anything else is conjecture including what YOU are saying and YOUR RED HERRINGS are repeatedly forcing us to go towards the CONJECTURAL side. STOP doing that and respond to the point's in the post, Thanks!

savage_carrot

Peace Thor,

Now, if khaniza means the literal pig in ayat 53 then it must mean the same thing in, otherwise, a discrepancy occurs. SC, wants us to believe that 53 is literal while 560 is figurative, however, Allah, does not say that 560 is a similitude?, hence, 560, then, must also be literal (so as not to create a discreapancy) Now, how is that possible?! Does Allah actually physically transform human beings into gorillas and hogs?! Just imagine the kind of superstitious craziness which would result from believing that people were actually transformed into apes and pigs! If we can believe that, why can't the Christians and the Nation of Islam, for examples, believe that Allah transformed Himself into a human being! Allah's and His Laws simply do not function like this.

That is not what SC is saying at all which is apparent to those that are reading. SC is saying that both are literal words and the context determines how you choose to read it as. This ensures integrity of the words used consistently. The rest of his post is exaggeration and ranting.

With this in mind then, neither ayat 53 nor ayat 560, is referring to the animal pig at all, hence, no discrepancy. In other words, if khaniza is defined as "that which I see as bad/unseemly", well, that meaning can be applied to both behaviors and material things without being figurative ( thereby obviating any contextual discrepancies as well) or creating a discrepancy between terms. Do you see?

Completely OFF. As if you take it the literal words THEMSELVES meaning something 'figurative' OR 'an adjective' OR 'descriptive' then you have discrepencies like

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. (As priest bokmei said in his previous posts, I have yet to see him refute my points to this or even any evidence that khanazeer's meaning can be divided into three parts).
1a) The way around it is to say, well it doesn't really say behaviour...to which one would ask then God turned them into 'bad I see' OR 'ill seeming' aka adjectives which cause problems when using it the SAME way in 6145 as highlighted in point 2. Or even stranger while using it in the same verse as God turned them into a descriptive behaviour. Right. God turned man into bad I see, or a man into ill-seeming or a man into bad. The word used must make sense on it's own in the sentence without adding to it outside of what the word actually means for it to be semantically correct as well. You can't say the word khanazeer literally means ill seeming behaviour, as it can only mean what it's definitions are.
We should not be eating 'meat I see bad' OR 'ill seeming meat' OR 'bad meat' in 6145. They are adjectives. That is NOT possible as an adjective is further used to ALREADY describe the word khinzeerin in 6145 itself as 'dirty/filthy/unclean' which is the same thing as what khanazeer is supposed to mean if we choose this meaning.
2a)This is a MAJOR redundancy which results in a meat that is described as meaning bad/dirty/ill seeming is ALREADY called that in the same verse 6145 by using an adjective rijsun to describe it. Thus, the only possible solution is khinzeer is pig/noun.

edited to add

jonny_k

therefore God show us in Quran new rules for the believers

There are no new rules in the quran, verse 55 says everything that is unlawful/lawful to the people of the book is also unlawful/lawful to muslims and there is nothing new that has been added or taken away from those food laws.

"and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them"

There is no difference between food laws of the OT and the quran other than the fact the the OT goes into more detail

Khi- Salam. Saying that the food of a ceratin people is lawful for us does not automatcially mean that all other food is unlawful for us. This is a nonsensible deduction. The verse doesnt say that everything else is unlawful. it is only stressing that since the people of the book usually or most of the time mention GOD's name Alone upon the food hence it is lawful and not like other religions like hinduism wgere the food is dedicted to idols or false gods. Such food wherther vege or non vege woulkd be prohibitted EXCEPT if one is forced by necessity as per 2173 and other verses. And this exception btw is what i didnt find in the OT or NT Bible. GOD Bless!