CONCLUSION OF THE SWINE DEBATE
-
PEACE, MARIE,
I agree again. Lahm/flesh, then, does not include for examples the pig's liver, intestines, kidneys, hooves, heart, brains, and lard/fat, hence, they are halal to eat. Now, the rational mind must ask, what is it about the lahm/flesh of pig, exactly, that makes it rijsun and haram for the eater to eat, whereas, the other parts, especially the intestines for example, is not? How can the flesh be more of a problem, then say, the intestines? I think we can all agree that the intestines as opposed to the flesh, is much more filthy. To reply with...Allah knows best, is to blindly follow and Allah condems this.
The body and the digestive system (intestines, stomach....) are closely linked Ponder more before making lawfull intestines, liver, the heart......
-
"Closely linked" does not mean..."the same as", you are fudging again. As lahm is distinct from shahm, hence, are entirely different terms, likewise, hawaya (small intestines), is also a distinct term and distinct from lahm and shahm. Given these distinctions then, the intestines of the pig, as with the intestines of the ox and sheep, likewise, must be halal, in that, the intestines are not lahm.
-
You said
"That doesn't proove that lahm = lahm +shahm. I think [/i The God speaks about Lahm because it is the principal component which cover the bones all details about this processus are not provided in this verse".
"I think" is not truth. Either you know what you are talking about or you don't. Ayats 733 makes it haram to speak of Allah without knowledge, meaning, having facts not opinion/"I think". In ayat 1736, Allah tells us not to follow anything of which we have no knowledge
- Say the things that my Lord hath indeed made haram are shameful deeds, whether open or secret; sins and trespasses against truth or reason; and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority; and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge.
1736 And follow not that of which you have not the knowledge; surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that.
Main Entry "I"...THINK to have as an opinion to regard as.
Main Entry OPINION belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.
Main Entry IMPRESSION a vague idea in which some confidence is placed.
Main Entry POSITIVE not speculative incontestable independent of changing circumstances.
Main Entry KNOW be convinced or certain of.
Main Entry CERTAIN known or proved to be true indisputable, dependable, reliable.
Main Entry KNOWLEDGE the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association.
Main Entry FACT the quality of being actual something that has actual existence a piece of information presented as having objective reality- in fact in truth.
Main Entry ACTUAL existing in fact or reality not false or apparent.
Main EntryTRUTH the state of being the case fact the body of real things, events, and facts actuality.
Main EntryREAL not artificial, fraudulent, illusory, or apparent occurring in fact.
Hence, when one loses focus of the above ayat and definitions, the following is the result
5328 And they have no knowledge of it; they do not follow anything but conjecture, and surely conjecture does not avail against the truth at all.
6116 And if you obey/follow the majority of those in the earth, they will lead you astray from Allah's way; they follow nothing but conjecture and they only lie.
Main Entry CONJECTURE supposition inference from defective or presumptive evidence b a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork.
Main Entry RAMA to speak conjecturally.
Pardon the digression, but the above needed to be said. Now back to point 2. You stated that lahm is a distinct term from shahm and that it covers the bones. You said
lahm/meat and shahm/fat are used distinctly in the Reading. When the God means all the body of the animal, He doesn't specify any part of it (meat, fat in different pat of the body, blood..). The language is concise...Maybe I'm wrong but if the God also prohibited the fat of the pig, He doesn't specify it like in 6146 (the fat of the cattle and the sheep). I have verified lahm in my arabic-arabic dictionary, I understand that lahm and shahm/fat are two distinct things. Of course, the fat can be mixeed with lahm
.Well, intestines and fat do not cover bones. Fat, as with the intestines, are full of pollutants. Why, then, isn't the fat of pig rijsun for the eater to eat? Also, regarding ayat 6146, Allah, makes it clear that the oxen and sheep, in the main, were halal for the the Jews to eat, only the fat was haram for them. Allah, uses the term illa/except to make it clear that not the entire ox and sheep was haram, but only a specific part of these animals was haram. In the ayats mentioning lahma khinzerin it is not clear at all as to whether the entire pig is haram or just a part of it, because the term illa/except is not used in regard to the pig as was/is used in regard to the oxen and sheep. In that, lahma khinzerin means ill-seeming, this confusion/question is instantly eliminated, because it can refer to flesh, fat, intestines, hooves, liver, etc.
I ask you the same question than Danish, since the blood and the meat of pig are edible and not fatal for human, how do you admit that the blood in the same way than carrion are not healthy and pure for us and not the meat of pig? I'd like to understand your logic.
Danish's and my logic, at least on this topic anyway, is dead on, however, your confusion resides in the fact that you continue to define lahma khinzerin as the meat of pigs (btw, are you defining lahma as meat or flesh/that which covers the bones?), hence, you are running into all kinds of contradicts/discrepancies. Danish and I are stating that the pig is not unhealthy to eat and, given the fact that billions have been eating since time immemorial without health problems, how is it then unhealthy/unpure for human consumption? On what do you base your conclusion the pig is unhealthy/unpure for the eater to eat as opposed to any animal which is halal for the eater to eat? Are fowl now haram because some are infected with the bird flu? Are cows haram because some are infected with "mad cow"? Remember now, you and SC, admitted that the pig is not by nature/in virtue of its created being, rijsun, but it rijsun for the eater to eat it, hence, on what logical/Quranic grounds then, is the pig haram for the eater to eat? Please, no "I thinks", "Allah knows bests", "you need to ponder mores", or "I've answered this already go back and look read what I saids", thanks.
Looking fowar to your reply.
-
-
PEACE, MARIE,
I was not clear in my last statement, I will try to clarify it through a question to you Can you eat liver, intestines, kidneys, hooves, heart, brain or fat of a sick cow with the disease of "Croswell-Jacob" ? Let us suppose that lahm alkhinzeer means ill-seeming meat, Does the God only forbid the meat of a sick cow with the disease of Croswell-Jacob? It is more logic that all the body of this cow was forbiden for the consumption and not only its meat
.PBM Excellent question and it proves my point that lahma khinzerin is not meat of pig. If a cow has "mad cow" disease of course no part of it is halal as food, because due to the disease it becomes...lahma khinzerin--ill-seeming/that which "I see as bad", hence, must be avoided.
Your interperation of lahm alkhinzeer collapse once again because the the God's commands are complete not partial. Does He forbid only the ill meat instead of all the body of each sick animals like deed meat?
- As I said previously, if any part of an animal becomes infected then the whole animal, to me anyway, is infected, hence, it becomes lahm khinzerin--ill-seeming/that which I see as bad. This is just common sense/intellect. One of the major problems with your position is this, if the meat of pig is not intrinsically bad by its created nature, then why is it rijsun for the eater to eat it? Something must be wrong with it by nature in order for Allah to make it haram. Remember now, the food made haram to Jews was not because it was bad by nature/something was wrong with it or bad for the eater to eat, it was made haram as a punishment. Soooo, what, in particular, is wrong with the flesh of pig? If something is wrong with it, then, intrinsically, it must be bad in and of itself and, therefore, must be bad for all humans in all times. Please, no Allah knows best.
MARIE lahm/meat and shahm/fat are used distinctly in the Reading. When the God means all the body all the body of the animal, He doesn't specify any part of it (meat, fat in different pat of the body, blood..). The language is concise.
-
If Allah had wanted the entire pig to be haram, He would not have used lahm, because, obviously, lahm is specific, as is shahm. For Allah to use lahm of the pig to mean the entire pig, could only do what we see manifesting now...cause confusion/discreapncy. When Allah decreed that animals with claws were haram for the Jews, there was no confusion that the entire animal was haram and not just one of its parts. So this part of your argument also disintergrates.
-
Both Savage Carrot and Tanveer, conclude that while the flesh of the pig is haram, its other parts are not. Are you now in opposition to their postion? This why you need to define how you are using lahm. Do you mean "the flesh", that is, that which covers the bones or do you mean all meat parts of the pig? Then, what about the hooves?
I hope you will not continue to ignore the following. I know you wish to, because it does, utterly, destroy your argument
- JM, wrote We have no direct knowledge of whether or not God forbade the Jews to eat pig. The torah may have been altered, so, it cannot be regarded as a reliable source of knowledge.
Now, Allah, per ayat 55, tells us that the food of the People of the Book/the Jews, is halal for us and vice versa. I've established without doubt that, prior to Al-Quran, the pig was not haram, because there exists no Quranic evidence to support such a claim, (JM, backs this up), thus, the pig, at the time Al-Quran is being revealed, is halal for the Muslim, because it was halal for the Jews/People of the Book, in that, it was NEVER haram to them in the first place. The fat of oxen and sheep and clawed animals become halal for the People of the Books/Jews, because these things were never haram for mankind in general in the first place, just for the Jews in particular, as punishment for their transgressions and not due to these things being in and of themselves rijsun/fasiqun/unhealthy for the eater to eat.
Now, prior to Allah taking away clawed animals and the fat of oxen and sheep (as punishment to the Jews), these things WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN HALAL for the Jews, otherwise, if they were already haram, how does Allah punish them?
4160 For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from Allah's Way;-
Does He make them MORE haram? Tell me, Marie, where is the pig haram before Al-Quran? Does Allah, before He revealed His Quran, decree that the pig was haram? If not, then ayat 55 destroys your argument.
Marie, it is you, who needs to ponder. You lack decisiveness and are contradicting yourself and Al-Quran all over the place.
The rest of your post, and its relationship to lahm khimzerin, made no sense to me, sorry.
-
PEACE, MARIE,
No comment avout your understanding of 55 because you use only a part of some verse to fit your point and you neglect the whole Reading. To you is your approch and to me is mine.
Nonsense, Marie. Since when is it not allowed to quote a part of an ayat as opposed to the entire ayat?! Who made up that rule? For example
3117 O my son! keep up prayer and enjoin the good and forbid the evil, and bear patiently that which befalls you; surely these acts require courage.
What?! cannot an individual simply say to someone the underlined in bold or does one have to quote the entire ayat to make that point? What are you talking about?? Please, stop with the excuses and address the following
- JM, wrote We have no direct knowledge of whether or not God forbade the Jews to eat pig. The torah may have been altered, so, it cannot be regarded as a reliable source of knowledge.
Now, Allah, per ayat 55, tells us that the food of the People of the Book/the Jews, is halal for us and vice versa. I've established without doubt that, prior to Al-Quran, the pig was not haram, because there exists no Quranic evidence to support such a claim, (JM, backs this up), thus, the pig, at the time Al-Quran is being revealed, is halal for the Muslim, because it was halal for the Jews/People of the Book, in that, it was NEVER haram to them in the first place. The fat of oxen and sheep and clawed animals become halal for the People of the Books/Jews, because these things were never haram for mankind in general in the first place, just for the Jews in particular, as punishment for their transgressions and not due to these things being in and of themselves rijsun/fasiqun/unhealthy for the eater to eat.
4160 For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from Allah's Way;-
Now, according to ayat 4160, prior to Allah taking away clawed animals and the fat of oxen and sheep (as punishment to the Jews), these things WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN HALAL for the Jews, otherwise, if they were already haram, how does Allah punish them? Does He make them MORE haram? Tell me, Marie, where is the pig haram before Al-Quran? Does Allah, before He revealed His Quran, decree that the pig was haram? If not, then ayat 55 destroys your argument.
You need to Quranically refute the above Marie, otherwise, your argument is gone. Looking forward to your reply.
-
PEACE, MARIE,
- As I said previously, if any part of an animal becomes infected then the whole animal, to me anyway, is infected, hence, it becomes lahm khinzerin--ill-seeming/that which I see as bad.
We agree that the consumption of any part of the animal whatever he is dead or sick/ill is unhealthy for the eater.
Agreed. However, one can only identify the above, if one can see the animal is sick,hence, khinzer "I see as bad".
However, the God specifies that it is forbiden for us "lahm alkhinzeer" and "almayta/dead animal" instead of lahm almayta/the meat of the dead animal. If the God means the whole ill-animal, then we should read only "alkhinzeer" without lahm in the same way than almayta wich is without any precision. Consequently, lahm alkhinzeer cannot mean nor the whole animal, neither ill seeming meat because the consumption of the whole animal whatever he is dead or sick is unhealthy for the eater. You insist that lhma alkhinzeer is ill-seeming which is not supported by the Reading and based only on conjecture. If the Reading is your criterion then you can see clearly that the God uses a specific word to mean ill/sick.
Given that, as you claim above, lahm alkhinzerin cannot mean the whole animal, then that's what it means...not the whole animal, but only the part defined as being haram. This means that, if Allah is being precise which He is, the fat, bone, and hoof material, are halal at all times. Haram is haram and halal is halal. Now, on the other hand, if something is khinzerin/something seen as bad, well, although the entire thing may be halal, if it is in this state i.e. khinzerin, then common sense/intellect, precludes any part of it from being consumed for food.
PBM This is just common sense/intellect. One of the major problems with your position is this, if the meat of pig is not intrinsically bad by its created nature, then why is it rijsun for the eater to eat it?
In the light of the Reading, permitted for us all the animals of the livestock, except what is specifically forbidden in the Book (51)
We are given for examples of these quadrupeds (6143-144)
- the sheeps
- the goats
- the camels
- the cows
They are herbivores and ruminants contrary to the pig which is omnivorous and non ruminant. We have to consider these four examples as a criterion for us. The desease of Croswell-Jacob is a good example.
The God created the pig as omnivorous non ruminant contrary to the the sheeps, goats, camels and cows. The God prohibited the meat of pig for us because its consuption can be a potential source of desease for human which is proved scientifically in the same way for the blood.
Now feel free to accept it or not.
The "omnivorous non ruminant" notion is something you've made up. This was dealt with before. Please don't make up your own criteria and then assign it to Allah, thanks.
51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you, not violating the prohibition against game when you are entering upon the performance of the pilgrimage; surely Allah orders what He desires.
2228 That they may witness advantages for them and mention the name of Allah during stated days over what He has given them of the cattle quadrupeds, then eat of them and feed the distressed one, the needy.
2234 And to every nation We appointed acts of devotion that they may mention the name of Allah on what He has given them of the cattle quadrupeds; so your God is One God, therefore to Him should you submit, and give good news to the humble.
What ayat says the quadruped, the pig, in its entirety or part, is haram?The pig is a quadruped, period, hence, it must be included along with the other quadrupeds-- camels, goats, sheep, oxen, horses, deer, etc. You cannot continue to keep making up your own criteria, Marie.
To make it clear one of all
Alkhinzeer = the whole animal
lahm alkhinzeer is not the whole animal
Why the God doesn't forbad the fat of pig, do refer to the scientific study about the fat of pig.
O.K., so you agree with Tanveer and S. Carrot that, only the meat of the pig is haram and not the entire pig. Am I interpreting you correctly?
the muscles are developed by the digestion of food. If there is a risk of disease after the consumption of the meat, this is also valid for the intestines, liver....
Sorry for the confusion, the quote above concerns only the prohibition of the pig's meat. You asked me about intestines, liver..of the pig et it was my response for you. If there is some infectious germs in the meat, it forwarded through the digective system. I hope it's clear for you.
No, you are not being clear at all. What I'm seeing is you setting up your own criteria to rule the pig out as halal food. On one hand you claim the pig is not, by nature, rijsun/bad, yet, you continue to claim that it is still bad for the eater to eat. What you wrote above can apply to any animal and not just the pig.
MARIE The source of desease is due to the infectious germ contained in the meat of pig, the runing blood and dead animal.
MARIE Just to add that Carrion (dead meat) OR running blood OR the flesh of swine are not themselves "RIJSUN" but to eat them is rijsun for the eater.
Your above two statements contradict.
-
If there exists an "infectious germ" within the meat of pigs, which precludes it being halal as food, as opposed to the other quadrupeds, then, the meat of pig, by nature is bad, because something, as opposed to other animals, is wrong with it. Also, if there exists an "infectious germ" in the meat of pigs, then the meat is not potentially bad/harmful, but is, at all times, ACTUALLY bad and harmful!
-
the entire animal then must also be infectious, including the fat.
-
what is the name of this "infectious germ"?
The diet of some animals make their meat unhealthy for us because it may contain some infectious germ. What is your problem with this?
LOL! Whew! Now, you've changed your position again! Now it's not the pig itself which contains the "infectious germ", but what is fed to it that contains the "infectious germ"! Which is it, Marie? It is apparent that you simply do not know what you are talking about and that is why you are all over the place like this. This is my problem.
I'm still waiting for a definitive definition for lahm, that is, how you are defining it.
Lahm = meat.
Fine, so meat excludes fat, bone, and hoof material, thus, these are halal as food...is this your position? If so, then how do these things escape the "infectious germ" contamination, which you claim is inherent to the meat of pigs?
Looking forward to your reply. Peace.
-
You need to Quranically refute the above Marie, otherwise, your argument is gone. Looking forward to your reply.
I have no time to repeat to you all quranic arguments which destroy your understanding.
Take much time to read carefully what is already said about it.
I leave you with peace
Marie, baloney and you know it . You know you have no Quranic refutation for declaring that the pig is haram once ayats 55 and 6146 are taken together.
Allah says
659 And with Him are the keys of the unseen treasures-- none knows them but He; and He knows what is in the land and the sea, and there falls not a leaf but He knows it, nor a grain in the darkness of the earth, nor anything green nor dry but (it is all) in a clear book.
Now, don't you think that Allah knows what is taking place on this forum between you and I as well? If so, then it behooves you to get honest and stop playing games. There is nothing to repeat, either you can in three or less sentances refute the following or you cannot. If you cannot then simply have the moral consciousness/humility and admit that. It is better to concede a point than to stick by an error and mislead yourself and others, there simply is no excuse for that at all.
- JM, wrote We have no direct knowledge of whether or not God forbade the Jews to eat pig. The torah may have been altered, so, it cannot be regarded as a reliable source of knowledge.
Now, Allah, per ayat 55, tells us that the food of the People of the Book/the Jews, is halal for us and vice versa. I've established without doubt that, prior to Al-Quran, the pig was not haram, because there exists no Quranic evidence to support such a claim, (JM, backs this up), thus, the pig, at the time Al-Quran is being revealed, is halal for the Muslim, because it was halal for the Jews/People of the Book, in that, it was NEVER haram to them in the first place. The fat of oxen and sheep and clawed animals become halal for the People of the Books/Jews, because these things were never haram for mankind in general in the first place, just for the Jews in particular, as punishment for their transgressions and not due to these things being in and of themselves rijsun/fasiqun/unhealthy for the eater to eat.
Now, prior to Allah taking away clawed animals and the fat of oxen and sheep (as punishment to the Jews), these things WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN HALAL for the Jews, otherwise, if they were already haram, how does Allah punish them? Does He make them MORE haram? Tell me, Marie, where is the pig haram before Al-Quran? Does Allah, before He revealed His Quran, decree that the pig was haram? If not, then ayats 55 and 6146, destroys your argument.
You need to Quranically refute the above Marie, otherwise, your argument is gone.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
PEACE, MARIE,
You are not serious and I have no time to waste with you
LOL! Yeah, right.
Anyway...
Marie, your stepping away and using the above as an excuse as to why you will not respond my 55/6146 argument, is a clear statement that you cannot refute it. So, from now on, whenever you attempt to declare that the meat of the pig is haram, your conscious will attack you, because in your heart of hearts, you will know that you cannot prove it due to ayats 55 and 6146. What are you going to do when others, whether here or off forum, present the 55/6146 argument, just blow them off? Your stepping away in this fashion is nothing less than a total abnegation of your erroneous position that the meat of pigs is haram.
Here's some advice Marie, don't say of Allah of that which you have no knowledge nor follow anything of which you have no knowledge ( the essence of ayats 733 and 1736). You need to ponder things more Marie, so start with ayats 733 and 1736, insha-Allah.
Peace.
-
- JM, wrote We have no direct knowledge of whether or not God forbade the Jews to eat pig. The torah may have been altered, so, it cannot be regarded as a reliable source of knowledge.
You are distorting what I have said, by quoting only a part of my post. Yes, we have no direct knowledge, but (as I have explained it) we have indirect knowledge, by combining and , and reminding the grammatical rule.
"Indirect knowledge", is a misnomer/oxymoron, and it means to "imply" something. One either has knowledge of something or one doesn't, period. If one does not have knowledge, then one has conjecture
Main Entry CONJECTURE supposition inference from defective or presumptive evidence b a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork.
Main Entry IMPLY to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement to contain potentially.
Main Entry POTENTIAL existing in possibility capable of development into actuality
Please familiarize yourself with the following definitions as well
Main Entry "I"...THINK to have as an opinion to regard as.
Main Entry OPINION belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.
Main Entry IMPRESSION a vague idea in which some confidence is placed.
Main Entry POSITIVE not speculative incontestable independent of changing circumstances.
Main Entry KNOW be certain of.
Main Entry CERTAIN known or proved to be true indisputable, dependable, reliable.
Main Entry KNOWLEDGE the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association.
Main Entry FACT the quality of being actual something that has actual existence a piece of information presented as having objective reality- in fact in truth.
Main Entry ACTUAL existing in fact or reality NOT false or apparent.
Main EntryTRUTH the state of being the case fact the body of real things, events, and facts actuality.
Main EntryREAL not artificial, fraudulent, illusory, or apparent occurring in fact.
Hence, when one loses focus of the above ayat and definitions, the following is the result
5328 And they have no knowledge of it; they do not follow anything but conjecture, and surely conjecture does not avail against the truth at all.
6116 And if you obey/follow the majority of those in the earth, they will lead you astray from Allah's way; they follow nothing but conjecture and they only lie.
Main Entry CONJECTURE supposition inference from defective or presumptive evidence b a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork.
Main Entry RAMA to speak conjecturally.
Clearly, "indirect" so-called "knowledge", is not knowledge at all, but conjecture, supposition, opinion, implication, something not existing in fact, etc. For example, the Christians have all sorts of "indirect knowledge" to support that Jesus is God/the son of God, however, they don't have one single solitary verse which emphatically, definitively, irrefutabley...DIRECTLY states that, now do they? D
Indirect knowledge is conjectural, because while it has the potential to be true, it, in its indirect state, is unrealized potentiallty, hence, it is not, in fact, knowledge (which is indisputable), but conecture/opinion.
-
JM,
6146 And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws/talons, 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.
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;...
At the time Al-Quran was being revealed, the species of animal, the pig, was not haram to the People of the Book i.e the Jews. This is my understanding, because Allah chooses His Words and means what He says, meaing, Allah made an entire category/species of animals haram to the Jews i.e. those with claws. Now, given the very fundamental fact/reality that pigs do not have claws, absolutely precludes their species of animals as being one of the species of haram animals. With this in mind then, because Allah did not make the pig haram to the Jews and, even if the Jews did forbid to themselves, it was not by Allah's Decree, that they did this, hence, the pig, at the the time Al-Quran was being revealed, was not by Allah's Decree an haram species. Given that the pig was not haram, ayat 55, clearly, tells us that the food of the People of the Book is lawful to us, hence, the pig, has to be halal to us, because it was never haram to the People of the Book in the first place and their food is halal for us.
- /JM/, wrote We have no direct knowledge of whether or not God forbade the Jews to eat pig. The torah may have been altered, so, it cannot be regarded as a reliable source of knowledge.
Now, Allah, per ayat 55, tells us that the food of the People of the Book/the Jews, is halal for us and vice versa. I've established without doubt that, prior to Al-Quran, the pig was not haram, because there exists no Quranic evidence to support such a claim, (JM, backs this up), thus, the pig, at the time Al-Quran is being revealed, is halal for the Muslim, because it was halal for the Jews/People of the Book, in that, it was NEVER haram to them in the first place. The fat of oxen and sheep and clawed animals become halal for the People of the Books/Jews, because these things were never haram for mankind in general in the first place, just for the Jews in particular, as punishment for their transgressions and not due to these things being in and of themselves rijsun/fasiqun/unhealthy for the eater to eat.
Now, prior to Allah taking away clawed animals and the fat of oxen and sheep (as punishment to the Jews), these things WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN HALAL for the Jews, otherwise, if they were already haram, how does Allah punish them? Does He make them MORE haram? Where is the pig haram before Al-Quran? Does Allah, before He revealed His Quran, decree that the pig was haram? If not, then ayats 55 and 6146, destroys the argument that the pig, either in part or whole, is haram as food.
Sorry, but...55/6146, utterly, destroys your's, Tanveer's, Savage Carrot's, Jaxal's, Marie's, Sweden's, erroneous assertion that, the meat of pigs is haram. I don't care how much grammar you bring, it will not make pigs have claws. My last comment to Marie, goes double for you
JM, your stepping away and using the above as an excuse as to why you will not respond my 55/6146 argument, is a clear statement that you cannot refute it. So, from now on, whenever you attempt to declare that the meat of the pig is haram, your conscious will attack you, because in your heart of hearts, you will know that you cannot prove it due to ayats 55 and 6146. What are you going to do when others, whether here or off forum, present the 55/6146 argument, just blow them off? Your stepping away in this fashion is nothing less than a total abnegation of your erroneous position that the meat of pigs is haram.
Here's some advice JM, don't say of Allah of that which you have no knowledge nor follow anything of which you have no knowledge ( the essence of ayats 733 and 1736). You need to ponder things more Marie, so start with ayats 733 and 1736, insha-Allah.
Peace.
-
Salaam Pb,
I know I shouldn't post here because you don't like me and my opinions.
But I have something I'm confused about.
The word for pig or swine, it seems like in all language it has a bad meaning for some reasons.
You guys who know the arabic language very well must be aware of the true word for pig, swine don't you?
If there are a wellknown word that all understands then God must use that word also in Quran, or!!!???
If it's only an appelation like "ill seeming" then of course it can goes for all bad meats infected with bacterias and so on.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
PEACE, SWEDEN,
I know I shouldn't post here because you don't like me and my opinions.
You can post anywhere you like. It's only me who cannot post anywhere I like. Where do you get the idea that I don't like you or what you have to say on a given topic? I would very much like to hear from you, however, what I don't like is for someone to be rude to me/say things to me which they know they wouldn't say to me face to face ( like Jaxal for example). I don't give my opinions anymore, because Allah, per ayat 733, makes it haram for man to give opinions relative to Him and His Deen. We must only, per ayat 1736, follow what we know as absolute fact, that is, what we have knowledge of.
But I have something I'm confused about. The word for pig or swine, it seems like in all language it has a bad meaning for some reasons.
The pig, universally, does have a bad name. It smells bad, makes weird noises, eats just about anything, likes to wallow in mud, is fat, ugly, yet, despite these things, the pig, except by some Jews and some so-called Muslims, is loved universally for its meat products.
You guys who know the arabic language very well must be aware of the true word for pig, swine don't you? If there are a wellknown word that all understands then God must use that word also in Quran, or!!!???
While khinzeer, in the Arabic language, does mean pig, it also means "that which I see as bad/the ill-seeming". The question then, is,... which definition did Allah choose to use in His Quran? As ayats 55 and 6146 prove, nowhere, has Allah made the pig haram, hence, khinzeer, cannot mean pig in Al-Quran, but the ill-seeming/that which I see as bad". I think if you really read my post dated Wed Sep 28, 2005 452 pm of this thread, it will be very apparent to you that, the pig, was never haram to man.
If it's only an appelation like "ill seeming" then of course it can goes for all bad meats infected with bacterias and so on.
I'm not certain what you mean here. Perhaps you could re-state your comment.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
Salaam PB,
Thanks for your reply,
Well what I actually meant with ill-seeming meat is that it can goes for nearly all meat if it's rotten for example or have been infected of parasites and bacterias, then it doesn't matter if the meat is from a cow or a goat or a pig.
If the arabic word khinzeer also means ill-seeming something bad then I can have a understanding that is what God is telling us in Quran.
But I'm not sure of course but not totally against that possibilities that khinzeer doesn't have to mean that pig is haram.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
PEACE, SWEDEN,
Well what I actually meant with ill-seeming meat is that it can goes for nearly all meat if it's rotten for example or have been infected of parasites and bacterias, then it doesn't matter if the meat is from a cow or a goat or a pig. If the arabic word khinzeer also means ill-seeming something bad then I can have a understanding that is what God is telling us in Quran.
I thought this is what you meant, but now you've made it clear for me. Yes, now you have it. Khninzeer, not only applies to infected cow, goat, me, but fruits, vegetables, and "toxic"/anti-Quranic people, as well.
But I'm not sure of course but not totally against that possibilities that khinzeer doesn't have to mean that pig is haram.
If you want to clear up any doubts, just read the post I gave you on this thread and you will have no doubt that, khinzeer, does not mean the animal pig in Al-Quran. Neither Marie, Savage Carrot, Tanveer, /JM/, nor Jaxal, can refute, Quranically, my analysis that post I referred you to. Are you able to reufute it? Ayats 55 and 6146, when taken together, completely dispel any notion that the pig is haram as food for mankind.
The so-called Muslim ummah, for a very long time now, has been laboring under so many lies/distortions...this is just one of them.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
Salaam Pb,
you wroteNow, Allah, per ayat 55, tells us that the food of the People of the Book/the Jews, is halal for us and vice versa. I've established without doubt that, prior to Al-Quran, the pig was not haram, because there exists no Quranic evidence to support such a claim, (JM, backs this up), thus, the pig, at the time Al-Quran is being revealed, is halal for the Muslim, because it was halal for the Jews/People of the Book, in that, it was NEVER haram to them in the first place. The fat of oxen and sheep and clawed animals become halal for the People of the Books/Jews, because these things were never haram for mankind in general in the first place, just for the Jews in particular, as punishment for their transgressions and not due to these things being in and of themselves rijsun/fasiqun/unhealthy for the eater to eat.
I suddenly get a thought of that the mention of khinzeer is mention together with blood and if we use the logic in this it must mean a ill-seeming meat not a special flesh of an animal.
It would be strange if God put the name of an forbidden animal together with blood, it must be an misunderstanding.Well sorry I'm in a rush I will come back later on Insha Allah.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Salaam Br Pb,
I checked the verse 6145 and there is khinzer mention together with apes and in that case it must refer to pig.
So I'm sorry I have nothing more to add.
I just don't know if khinzer is always used to mean pig or that it can also mean ill-seeming.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
PEACE, SWEDEN,
PBM you wroteNow, Allah, per ayat 55, tells us that the food of the People of the Book/the Jews, is halal for us and vice versa. I've established without doubt that, prior to Al-Quran, the pig was not haram, because there exists no Quranic evidence to support such a claim, (JM, backs this up), thus, the pig, at the time Al-Quran is being revealed, is halal for the Muslim, because it was halal for the Jews/People of the Book, in that, it was NEVER haram to them in the first place. The fat of oxen and sheep and clawed animals become halal for the People of the Books/Jews, because these things were never haram for mankind in general in the first place, just for the Jews in particular, as punishment for their transgressions and not due to these things being in and of themselves rijsun/fasiqun/unhealthy for the eater to eat.
I suddenly get a thought of that the mention of khinzeer is mention together with blood and if we use the logic in this it must mean a ill-seeming meat not a special flesh of an animal. It would be strange if God put the name of an forbidden animal together with blood, it must be an misunderstanding.
Majidah, your consciousness is heightening, all praises due to Allah. Of course your logic is sound in this matter. When this argument was first introduced to me over a year ago, the presenter, came to the same conclusion which you did in your above comment. The more you read the post I gave you, the more clear this becomes. D
Peace.
-
PEACE, SWEDEN,
I checked the verse 6145 and there is khinzer mention together with apes and in that case it must refer to pig.
I don't think you mean ayat 6145. I don't see apes in this ayat.
So I'm sorry I have nothing more to add.
No, problem.
I just don't know if khinzer is always used to mean pig or that it can also mean ill-seeming.
Khinzeer, while it does mean pig in the Arabic language, it also means ill-seeming/that what I see as bad. As you are beginning to see, Allah, does not use the animal pig definition in His Quran. This is what must be understood, do you see? You are undoubtedly a logic young lady, so having said that, do you realy believe, logically, that Allah transformed human beings into actual apes and pigs like we see in the zoos?
Peace.
-
I've established without doubt that, prior to Al-Quran, the pig was not haram, because there exists no Quranic evidence to support such a claim
All this proves is that Muhammads book is wrong, because we know that PIG is forbidden in the Torah and this is pre-quran.
The fat of oxen and sheep and clawed animals become halal for the People of the Books/Jews
Apparently Allah forgot to tell the Jews about this so called New law, because there is no such food law in Jewish scripture that forbids "Clawed animals/birds". In fact the Torah lists many clawed birds by name that are lawful to the Jews.
What is the point in making such a Law and than forgetting to tell the Jews about it!!!....
And the Jews already knew about the "fat of oxen and sheep" Law long before they broke the covenant of Moses, so how this can be punishment is yet another discrepancy in Muhammads Book..
..
-
Salaam Albion,
Well you should be known to that the Torah has been changed of humans to fit their needs.
It was one of the reasons why I left christianity.
Quran came and make everything alright again and you should know that people have tried to destroy Quran too and they have in some way because they add to their deen extra rules and additions in form of ahadiths and then claimed the stories father was prophet Muhaammed and then all blind people just couldn't resist to follow these manmade tales and deserted the Quran.
Therefore when we study Al-Quran we have to study for real and don't be blind so it is the real message we will adhere to.
I know it can sounds difficult and strange but we have to do that and my belief is that a one that really want to find the truth will find the truth Insha Allah.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Salaam Pb,
Well thanks for your replies,
I'm not a stranger to keep holding on to that understanding that khinzeer can refer to ill-seeming.
But I will keep this open until I realize more Brother!
I don't want to rush into something!
Peace
Sis Majidah