CONCLUSION OF THE SWINE DEBATE
-
Not only is ayat 6146 about specif things made haram, but the specific species of animal made haram by Allah, are only those with claws (why do you continue to ignore this fact?!), which, of course, excludes the animal pig. Is this not correct, yes or no?
No.
And as I have already said you, the quran is to be taken as a whole, all its verses are complementing each other.
You should consider the whole quran, an not take a single verse apart and try to conform the rest of the quran to it.
As an example, you could take , and say the punishment for zina is 100 stripes, and there is no exception.
But, in other verses, you will find exceptions, like in and .
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1947&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75#43917Here, you are trying to conform your understanding of the meaning of into ... But this is not the right way to interpret the quran.
Secondly, as idmkhizar has said, the "only" is not self-evident.
As an example, If I say to my sons "Forbidden to you are pornographic movies", this does not imply that they can watch all other movies.
To mean that, I would have to say "Only Forbidden to you are pornigraphic movies".This logical fallacy is called "Denying the antecedent"
cf http//www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Denying_the_antecedentHere is the mistake you are making
If P, then Q.
P is false.
Therefore, Q is false.
http//www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Denying_the_antecedentWith P = "An animal have claws".
And Q = "It is forbidden to the jews".It gives
If "An animal have claws" , then "It is forbidden to the jews" .
"An animal have claws" is false. (in our example a pig)
Therefore, "It is forbidden to the jews is false" . (in our example the pig is not forbidden)This form of argument may be convincing because of confusion between the meanings of if and if and only if . Denying the antecedent is valid if the first premise asserts "if and only if" rather than "if".
http//www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Denying_the_antecedentHope your logical fallacy has been clearly exposed.
Please reflect on it, and try to be logic.
My request is...provide an exhaustive list of other species of animals made haram to the Jews. You cannot claim that the pig was ever haram to the Jews, because as a specie of animal, it is among the species of animals that don't have claws. Thus, Allah, could not have made the pig haram, because as with the sheep and ox ( remember, the sheep and oxen were not haram...just their fat), it too, as a specie animal, has.... hooves and not claws (sheep, goats, oxen, cows, pigs etc. do not have claws and that is why their sepcies were not haram to the Jews. Is this correct, yes or no.
Shahm/fat, although made haram to the Jews, is NOT A SPECIE OF ANIMAL. All species of animals both land and sea which possessed claws were haram to the Jews. Ayat 6146 is making entire species of animals haram due t their having claws and making a particular part of two halal animals, the fat. Specific to the Jews then, the pig is not represented in either of these two groups. Is this correct, yes or no.
But, like "the fat of sheep and ox", "The flesh of swine", is not a species of animal... Is it ?
Anyway, you argument is still a logical fallacy.
Let's imagine I say to my sons
"1) Forbidden to you are pornographic movies, because it is foul."
"2) And you, Derek, you are forbidden to watch movies with Tom Cruise, because of your rebellion (your refusing to do your homework). "Will you retort that my 2 prohibitions are contradicting each other ?
Will you retort that "Deep Throat" (it is a pornographic movie) can not be forbidden to Derek, because Tom Cruise does not play in ?Please reflect on the logical fallacies you are constantly making.
Peace
-
Peace,
I think the people who are individually arguing against this troll, rather than banging themselves up against the illogical arguments presented, should agree amongst themselves that DHULQARNANE is incapable of understanding simple logic.
Just accept that this person is not capable of understanding and move on. Many have tried, and unless you all smarten up, then this person is making a mockery out of everyone who responds.
Think about it... can you make an ape understand?
-
Salam PBM
The word "only" is self-evident. When Allah made animals with claws haram, what, do you think He made some animals with claws halal at the same time or some that He some other species of animal, in their entirety, haram? If so, then post that species. If you can't, then your question is not relevent. You still haven't answered my question
Not only is ayat 6146 about specific things made haram to the Jews, but the specific species of animal made haram by Allah, are only those with claws (why do you continue to ignore this fact?!), which, of course, excludes the animal pig. Is this not correct, yes or no?
Looking to your reply.
Khi- This is not a fact at all. Your completely wrong. The 'only' you conclude from 6146 is PURE CONJECTURE. Others may conclude from 6146 that those animal prohibitons are ONLY those made haram to the Jews BECAUSE OF THEIR TRANGRESSIONS while this does not obviously exclude other animals being made haram to them and those would be the universal prohibitions in 6145. In short 6146 is AN ADDITIONAL , NOT A COMPLETE, SET OF ANIMAL PROHINTIONS TO THE JEWS "DUE TO THEIR TRANSGRESSION". This last phrase makes it evident. GOD Bless!
O.K., fine, if the clawed species of animals weren't the "only" species of animals which Allah made haram to the Jews, then post the ayat where Allah tells us what other specie of animals, specific to the Jews, He made haram. If you cannot do this, then you are "only" conjecturng.
-
Salam PBM
Khi- This is not a fact at all. Your completely wrong. The 'only' you conclude from 6146 is PURE CONJECTURE. Others may conclude from 6146 that those animal prohibitons are ONLY those made haram to the Jews BECAUSE OF THEIR TRANGRESSIONS while this does not obviously exclude other animals being made haram to them and those would be the universal prohibitions in 6145. In short 6146 is AN ADDITIONAL , NOT A COMPLETE, SET OF ANIMAL PROHINTIONS TO THE JEWS "DUE TO THEIR TRANSGRESSION". This last phrase makes it evident. GOD Bless!
O.K., fine, if the clawed species of animals weren't the "only" species of animals which Allah made haram to the Jews, then post the ayat where Allah tells us what other specie of animals, specific to the Jews, He made haram. If you cannot do this, then you are "only" conjecturng.
Idmkhizar has not spoken of "species of animals made haram", he has spoken of "animal prohibitions".
And he has not spoken of animal prohibitions "specific to the jews", he has spoken of "animal prohibitions to the jews" (not specifically).Please do not distort what we express.
Well, you can find an other set of animal prohibitions applying to the jews in
- what is already dead
- blood
- lahma khinzeerin (the flesh of swine)
Hope you will not make us repeat it again.
-
PEACE, JM,
IDMKHIZIRKhi- This is not a fact at all. Your completely wrong. The 'only' you conclude from 6146 is PURE CONJECTURE. Others may conclude from 6146 that those animal prohibitons are ONLY those made haram to the Jews BECAUSE OF THEIR TRANGRESSIONS while this does not obviously exclude other animals being made haram to them and those would be the universal prohibitions in 6145. In short 6146 is AN ADDITIONAL , NOT A COMPLETE, SET OF ANIMAL PROHINTIONS TO THE JEWS "DUE TO THEIR TRANSGRESSION". This last phrase makes it evident. GOD Bless!
DHULQARNANEO.K., fine, if the clawed species of animals weren't the "only" species of animals which Allah made haram to the Jews, then post the ayat where Allah tells us what other specie of animals, specific to the Jews, He made haram. If you cannot do this, then you are "only" conjecturng.
JM Idmkhizar has not spoken of "species of animals made haram", he has spoken of "animal prohibitions".
And he has not spoken of animal prohibitions "specific to the jews", he has spoken of "animal prohibitions to the jews" (not specifically). Please do not distort what we express.Listen, I don't care what you or IDM, is "saying", I care what Allah is saying, and in ayat 6146, Allah, is speaking about a specific species of animals which He made haram, and a specific people to whom these specific species of animals were made haram. If you and IDM, are going to maintain the Jews were forbidden to eat the pig, then you must provide the ayat where Allah says, specifically, that He made the pig haram, specifically, to the Jews. The pig, not having claws, cannot be among the specific species of animals which Allah, specifically, made haram, specifically, to the Jews. Just your continuing to demand that lahm khinzeer means pig without refuting ayat 6146, which proves that it doesn't mean pig at all, is simply unbridled nonsense.
JM Well, you can find an other set of animal prohibitions applying to the jews in
- what is already dead
- blood
- lahma khinzeerin (the flesh of swine)
Those things above and NOT species of animals. Ayat 6146, is speaking about specific species of animals and a specific peoples. When is this major Quranic fact going to sink into you people's heads?
I Hope you will not make me repeat it again.
-
PEACE, JM,
JM But, like "the fat of sheep and ox", "The flesh of swine", is not a species of animal... Is it ?
Correct, however, other than the fat, the rest of the animal was halal, becuase it is not a clawed animal. Had it been clawed animal, then not only would the fat have been haram, but the whole animal would have been haram. Once again, this not withstanding, the pig is exempt, because, as with the ox, sheep, goat, ibix, antelope, deer etc., it doesn't have claws either. Tell me...what are you really arging?
-
PEACE, JM,
Listen, I don't care what you or IDM, is "saying", I care what Allah is saying, and in ayat 6146, Allah, is speaking about a specific species of animals which He made haram
No, is not about "specific species of animals".
There are none of the 3 words "specific", "species" and "animals" in .
is about food prohibitions.The fat of the cattle and the sheep (except what is attached to the back, or entrails, or mixed with bone) is not a " specific species of animals".
It is a food prohibition.If you and IDM, are going to maintain the Jews were forbidden to eat the pig, then you must provide the ayat where Allah says, specifically, that He made the pig haram, specifically, to the Jews.
No, there is no need of an ayat dealing specifically with the jews.
The food prohibitions listed in are availing for mankind, so, they have been availing to jews too. -
PEACE, JM,
JM But, like "the fat of sheep and ox", "The flesh of swine", is not a species of animal... Is it ?
Correct, however, other than the fat, the rest of the animal was halal, becuase it is not a clawed animal. Had it been clawed animal, then not only would the fat have been haram, but the whole animal would have been haram. Once again, this not withstanding, the pig is exempt, because, as with the ox, sheep, goat, ibix, antelope, deer etc., it doesn't have claws either. Tell me...what are you really arging?
Since I am not sure we can say that the pig has claws (I am not an expert in anatomy), I prefer to assume that the pig has no claws.
Let's give up this digression and focus on what is really important.
-
PEACE, JM,
DHULQARNANEListen, I don't care what you or IDM, is "saying", I care what Allah is saying, and in ayat 6146, Allah, is speaking about a specific species of animals which He made haram
No, is not about "specific species of animals".
There are none of the 3 words "specific", "species" and "animals" in .
is about food prohibitions.Yes, the prohibition is of particular species of animals---THOSE WITH CLAWS, i.e. lobsters, crabs, turkeys, chickens, etc. How are you are not able to grasp this simple concept is just beyond me?! Do you so fear having to concede this point to me so much that, you would rather hide and distort the truth of Allah? What is wrong with you?
JMNo, there is no need of an ayat dealing specifically with the jews. The food prohibitions listed in are availing for mankind, so, they have been availing to jews too.
What are you talking about "no need"?! Of course their is a need. You and Idmkhzar, assert that there were other species of animals made haram to the Jews. Well, now you have to prove, that is, produce the ayat which contains Jew and what other animal species Allah made haram to them, just as Allah did in ayat 6146.
Since I am not sure we can say that the pig has claws (I am not an expert in anatomy), I prefer to assume that the pig has no claws.
Well, if you aren't sure of what you are asserting and practicing and forbidding in Allah's Name, then why are you declaring that the pig is haram?! It is, per ayat 1736, haram for you do what you are doing...or do you reject that ayat too? Given that, pigs do not have claws, then they were not numbered among the haram species of animals made haram to the Jews. Are you willing to at least admit this much yet?
Let's give up this digression and focus on what is really important.
What are you talking about?!, this is important. Read Sura Rahman. Also, anything which we decleare in Allah's name is important. That this is in Allah's Eternal Quran, makes it important. If you wish to quit the discussion, well, no problem.
-
PEACE, JM,
DHULQARNANEListen, I don't care what you or IDM, is "saying", I care what Allah is saying, and in ayat 6146, Allah, is speaking about a specific species of animals which He made haram
No, is not about "specific species of animals".
There are none of the 3 words "specific", "species" and "animals" in .
is about food prohibitions.Yes, the prohibition is of particular species of animals---THOSE WITH CLAWS
No.
let's define 2 sets A and B.
A = food prohibitions
B = animal species food prohibitionsAnd 2 elements
x = animals with claws
y = The fat of the cattle and the sheep, except what is attached to the back, or entrails, or mixed with boneThen x belongs to A and B, and y belongs to B and not to A.
So, we can say that the set made of x and y belongs to B, but not that it belongs to A.
Since the prohibitions in are composed of the 2 elements x and y, we can say that is about food prohibitions, but not about animal species food prohibitions.
Please use logic.
JMNo, there is no need of an ayat dealing specifically with the jews. The food prohibitions listed in are availing for mankind, so, they have been availing to jews too.
What are you talking about "no need"?! Of course their is a need.
Wrong.
Let's define 2 sets, A and B.
A = the jews
B = mankind.Then A is included into B (the jews are included into mankind).
So, if something is true for all elements of B, it is also true for all elements of A.
In our exemple, the flesh of swine is haram for mankind, so it is haram for the jews too.
Please use logic.
You and Idmkhzar, assert that there were other species of animals made haram to the Jews.
Wrong.
We have asserted that there were other food prohibitions, not other species of animal prohibitions.Please don't misquote us.
Please know that, if you continue not to be logic, and to misquote me, our dialog will stop.
-
Yes, the prohibition is of particular species of animals---THOSE WITH CLAWS
JMNo.
No?! Are you actually going to go on record here and state that, ayat 6146, is not stating that specific species of animals, those with claws, were not made haram to a specific people, who come before the revealing of Al-Quran...is this really your position? If this is your position, then there is no point in my discussing this issue with you any further, because you aren't even being true to what is plainly in front of you.
let's define 2 sets A and B.
A = food prohibitions
B = animal species food prohibitionsAnd 2 elements
x = animals with claws
y = The fat of the cattle and the sheep, except what is attached to the back, or entrails, or mixed with boneThen x belongs to A and B, and y belongs to B and not to A.
So, we can say that the set made of x and y belongs to B, but not that it belongs to A.
Since the prohibitions in are composed of the 2 elements x and y, we can say that is about food prohibitions, but not about animal species food prohibitions.
Please use logic.
Listen, all of the x's and o's and y's nd equal signs, are not going to equate to pigs having claws nor change the fact that, ayat 6146 is speaking about a specific species of animals and and a specific people, who come before the revealing of Al-Quran. That is logic
Wrong. We have asserted that there were other food prohibitions, not other species of animal prohibitions. Please don't misquote us.
Is the pig used as food by people? Well, if it is, then what you are asserting is that the pig was haram to the Jews before the coming of Al-Quran, hence, you need to, by way of Al-Quran, prove this. So, what other specific animal(s) for food, PRIOR to the coming of Al-Quran, were specifically made haram to the Jews, in addition to those already mentioned in ayat 6146.
Please know that, if you continue not to be logic, and to misquote me, our dialog will stop.
The above is the logic you requested, so, provide the specific evidenced called for to prove you assertion. Remember now, I'm asking you about the Jews prior to Al-Quran...do we understand each other?, good.
-
Salaam All,
As this thread is over 4 years old, I am a new member of this site, I hope I will be forgiven for my lateness! -[
I must commend the scholarship of Priest BOKMEI (shown in multiple threads), and I understand his frustrations - my hope is that all of the members of this site be real seekers, and not those who hold on hard to preconceived notions and use this site as a forum to do so. Seeing the lengths that some people go to in order to preserve old thinking rather than out of it a genuine search for knowledge and truth is exactly what gets me so down about the state of Muslims.
I have long struggled with the apparent contradiction in the Quran as well as the Torah regarding pig which is why I went through this and its related threads.
In the Torah (Genesis), Noah is permitted pig (and is only forbidden blood and carrion), but in Lev and Deut, we see an additional prohibition for khizeer (Hebrew). Likewise, if khinzeer (Arabic) is to be read as referring to pig, then, as Preist BOKMEI pointed out, the Quran is internally inconsistent as flesh of swine is not included in the list of foods forbidden to Jews as punishment for rebellion.
The rule of Quranic interpretation is that each verse must be interpreted as consistent with all others. The only way to do this is if khinzeer has another meaning other than a reference to pig, and if it does, and such a meaning would render the Quran as internally consistent, then it must be adopted. If khinzeer is a reference to meat which is bad/foul/contaminated, then it must be shown that pig meat is intrinsically bad/foul/contaminated in order for it (and other meats) to be prohibited. However, despite the risks associated with it (eg., flu viruses, trichinosis), according to the data, these are not overwhelmingly and compellingly serious reasons to discount or cancel its benefits - no meat is perfect, most imperfections can be overcome, and many meats are far more riskier than pig for the same or other reasons. To each his own, but in my view, one needs to make a judgement call regarding whether pig (and other meats) are included in the definition of khinzeer, and such a decision is a personal one. That said, one would still need to concede that there is no explicit reference to pig in the Quran, but one came to that conclusion based on what they judged to be intrinsically bad or foul, in this case pig, and must make similar judgement calls with regard to any other type of meat.
It is circular to keep insisting that pig was explicitly forbidden to Jews since (1) it was not forbidden to Noah and (2) khizeer has the same meaning as khinzeer and could thus have become subject to the same anti-pig prejudice that prevailed at the time. The debate regarding the meaning kninzeer should also apply to khizeer, especially in light of the clear words of the Quran regarding what Allah forbade the Jews. Indeed, referring to pigs as khizeer/khinzeer could well have been an evolutionary development in language, and a later connotation imposed upon the pig.
What always confused me about the apparent contradiction in the Quran is that I did not fully understand the meaning of the khinzeer. As it has alternative meanings, and indeed, the meaning "ill-seeming/bad" appears to be a primary meaning (from the roots khinz and ara "I see it foul", it logically appears that this word became associated with the pig and thus imposed upon, thus confusing scriptural interpretation.
Even if pigs had claws, that does not matter, because such a prohibition does not apply to Muslims (since they are not the ones punished for rebellion in the Quran).
If khinzeer is in fact to be interpreted as 'meat of swine', then it must be noted that this is to be distinguished from 'fat of swine' (since the Quran makes such a distinction with respect to the fat of oxen, goat and sheep only) and 'intestines' appear to be included in the meaning of 'fat' (since the Quran stipulates it as an exception to the fat prohibition for Jews). Therefore, if pig meat is prohibited, its fat is not, thus rendering bacon as halal. I find it very hard to believe that Allah intended such a result if in fact khinzeer is a reference to pig, further supporting Priest BOKMEI's arguments.
As an aside I would be interested in knowing whether pigs actually existed in the Hejaz at the time of the Prophet. If they did not, then one could posit that interpreting khinzeer as a reference pig was a later interpretational innovation.
Wasalaam.
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
It IS an old thread. No problem!
If one takes the meat of swine to be forbidden, then bacon made from swine would be forbidden. The reason for this is that bacon is not entirely fat/adipose tissue--there is muscle mixed in with the fat, too. Muscle is meat. One could always eat bacon not made from pork--beef bacon, turkey bacon, etc.
There is a difference between flesh and meat. Flesh includes meat and fat.
Opinions and understandings vary regarding gelatin. Gelatin is widely used in processed foods and medicines--it isn't just in Jello or marshmallows.
Peccaries are not pigs...totally different family (family Tayassuidae instead of family Suidae). Peccary bacon, anyone?
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
2230 says
Those who reverence the rites decreed by God have deserved a good reward at their Lord. All livestock is made lawful for your food, except for those specifically prohibited for you. You shall avoid the abomination of idol worship, and avoid bearing false witness.
If we take pig to not mean pig but rotten meat, then what specifically prohibited livestock is this verse talking about?
-
anything about swine is forbidden, because LAHMAN is everything over bones
- 18 - 14 - 342
than we made the tisse (mussle / Mudhga) bones, and we clothed the bones (lahman) giblets ...
anything above bones is called lahman, inclusing eyes, ears, brains ....
the mussle as meat in the quran is called BUDNA
- 17 - 36 - 336
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
anything about swine is forbidden, because LAHMAN is everything over bones
- 18 - 14 - 342
than we made the tisse (mussle / Mudhga) bones, and we clothed the bones (lahman) giblets ...
anything above bones is called lahman, inclusing eyes, ears, brains ....
the mussle as meat in the quran is called BUDNA
- 17 - 36 - 336
Well, gelatin is made from bones--often pig bones. Broth/stock is also made from bones. It is clear that bones are not included in what is forbidden. Even if you take everything above the bone to be forbidden, that still leaves the bones! But that's not all...
2237 Neither their meat nor their blood reaches GOD, but what reaches Him is the righteousness from you. It was thus that He made them in service to you, so that you may glorify GOD for what He has guided you to, and give news to the good doers.
Blood is clearly separate from flesh. Some people believe that only running blood is forbidden--just saying.
2236 And the plump livestock , We have made them for you to be among the symbols of GOD; you will have benefit in them. So mention the name of GOD upon them in succession; then, once their sides have become still, you may eat from them and feed with them the poor and the needy. It was thus that We have made them in service to you, that you may be thankful.
Wal-bud'na literally means "pieces of meat."
3512 Nor are the two seas the same. One is fresh and palatable, good to drink, while the other is salty and bitter. And from each of them you eat tender meat, and you extract jewelry to wear. And you see the ships sailing through them, seeking His provisions; and perhaps you may be thankful.
Do shellfish have bones? hmm Fish have bones--but oysters aren't just for pearls! ! Clearly shellfish are among what is addressed in 3512. Meat is not necessarily related to bone.
5222 We will supply them with fruit and meat such as they desire.
Some people like to eat brains and eyeballs and other parts. eat
Look if swine were totally forbidden, it would be stated...but it isn't--not in AQ. Forbidden to us is lama khinzrin, not khinzrin.
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
This argument is silly because obviously if the flesh of something is prohibited to you the thing itself is prohibited because you would have to go through the flesh of it to get to the other parts. One cannot argue that if the torah says it that it might not be true because Allah asks us to look into these books and also asks us to ask people of the book.
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.
( , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #173)Deuteronomy 148
And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.What Jew would create such a scripture? It is a truth and yet you like the Christian will try to alter the truth to do whatever they seem fit this is what the Christians use
Acts 1520
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.This was in reference to Gentiles so to them Pork would be permissable but the fact is Jesus would have never eaten pork he even cast the bad spirits into the swine
Mark 512-13
King James Version (KJV)
12And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
13And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand and were choked in the sea.
Allah clearly says if you must eat out of a need then eat otherwise do not eat it
-
This argument is silly because obviously if the flesh of something is prohibited to you the thing itself is prohibited because you would have to go through the flesh of it to get to the other parts. One cannot argue that if the torah says it that it might not be true because Allah asks us to look into these books and also asks us to ask people of the book.
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.
( , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #173)Deuteronomy 148
And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.What Jew would create such a scripture? It is a truth and yet you like the Christian will try to alter the truth to do whatever they seem fit this is what the Christians use
Acts 1520
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.This was in reference to Gentiles so to them Pork would be permissable but the fact is Jesus would have never eaten pork he even cast the bad spirits into the swine
Mark 512-13
King James Version (KJV)
12And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
13And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand and were choked in the sea.
Allah clearly says if you must eat out of a need then eat otherwise do not eat it
I agree with you in what you said but remember that the Gospel itself never mentioned the prohibition of eating pork. Meaning that neither Jesus or his disciples ever reminded their followers to abstain from pork. So we must keep things in priority. This is not the ten commandments and nowhere did the Koran warn against eating pork or promise reward for not eating pork as it did with many things. The Koranic emphasis or the Gospelian emphasis is not there.
So if a Koranist eat pork its like a Koranist not caring about any Qibla while praying. The Koran did talk about adhering to some Qibla and yet downplayed its significance. We must base things according to the Koran's prioirity and not become like the Israelites and the Sabbath. Some of them may not even feed the poor or do important work during the Sabbath. The Koran reminds us of falling trap to legalism and forgeting that heaven is not based on protocol. You have to earn it. Chewing and eating and swallowing pork is not going to determine your fate. It is important I believe that when discussing such matters that we take priorities into account.
Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and strive with might and main in the cause of Allah? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah and Allah guides not those who do wrong. Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with might and main, in Allah's cause, with their goods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of Allah they are the people who will achieve (salvation). 9.19-20
2.177. It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah.fearing.
So imagine eating or not eating pork.
-
I agree with you in what you said but remember that the Gospel itself never mentioned the prohibition of eating pork. Meaning that neither Jesus or his disciples ever reminded their followers to abstain from pork. So we must keep things in priority. This is not the ten commandments and nowhere did the Koran warn against eating pork or promise reward for not eating pork as it did with many things. The Koranic emphasis or the Gospelian emphasis is not there.
So if a Koranist eat pork its like a Koranist not caring about any Qibla while praying. The Koran did talk about adhering to some Qibla and yet downplayed its significance. We must base things according to the Koran's prioirity and not become like the Israelites and the Sabbath. Some of them may not even feed the poor or do important work during the Sabbath. The Koran reminds us of falling trap to legalism and forgeting that heaven is not based on protocol. You have to earn it. Chewing and eating and swallowing pork is not going to determine your fate. It is important I believe that when discussing such matters that we take priorities into account.
Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and strive with might and main in the cause of Allah? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah and Allah guides not those who do wrong. Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with might and main, in Allah's cause, with their goods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of Allah they are the people who will achieve (salvation). 9.19-20
2.177. It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah.fearing.
So imagine eating or not eating pork.
Yes, I realize eating pork is not going to send someone to the fire and for that matter neither will drinking alcohol or gambling but the fact is the more a person can lean towards abstaining from the things that are not the best for them the better they can lean towards the things that are the best for them. Perfect example is I have become Muslim around 7 years ago and after a life time of eating pork I decided to abstain and each time I am asked and I desist from eating it I feel like I am leaning towards what is best and not so much that pork is the issue but the leaning towards what is best but if I was hungry and eating the pork was the best thing to do I would do it and also feel I was leaning towards the best thing to do.
I think the main issue is control and discipline if we can restrict ourselves from some small things we can have that strength as a reserve to ward off more difficult temptations but if we allow everything I believe we will be in a weakened state.
