Fat forbidden for the jews,was it realy?
-
Salaams Br ahmed,
560
Say ?Shall I inform you of worse than this as a punishment from God? Those whom God cursed and became angry at them, and He made from them apes and pigs and servants of evil. Those have a worst place and are more astray from the right path.?What is this , a metaphor - if so show me where it says its a metaphor - and don't say of things what Allah doesn't say of them.
;D
Salaams.
-
Peace Simple
I apologize if this sounds harsh, but you really can't just pick an aya that doesn't make sense to you, and instead of trying to understand it, make up things. This is really not how deen works at all. If there are issues you have with quran I would suggest you try to research thru the real meaning, because there is a big danger in attributing falsehood to God's Word.
It's great that you take nothing for granted and use ijtihad to try to break ayaat down and get to the nitty-gritty. But when you do that, please keep in mind that you can't twist the aya to your liking.
I'm not going to break down the entire aya for you because I'm sure you've gone over it enough times to know that the aya specifically states WA MIN AL BAQAR WA AL GHANAM.... and from the cows and sheep... HARRAMNA AALAYHOM SHOHOOMAHOMA ... we forbade for them their fat.... ELLA MA HAMALAT THOHOOROHOMA AW AL HAWAYA ... except what's stuck to the back or entrails... AW MA AKHTALAT BE AATHM THALIK... or what was mixed with the bones .
This is a very detailed description of the body parts of an animal with the exact kind of animal this pertains to as well. There can be no "alternative" meaning, I'm sorry.
These were dietary laws for the Jews in order to test them. Much like their test with the she-camel. Much like their test with the cow. It is to discern the faithful from the hypocrites. Today, for Muslims God ordains to eat from all the good foods He Blessed us with. Except the meat of a dead animal, blood, and swine. Thank God, it is a simple test for us and also beneficial to our bodies to stay away from such things. You ask why God did not add, don't eat sh_t. It's just self-explanatory. It's not appetizing but perhaps bacon is. So we'd need a heads up on that one. As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with eating a monkey. Not something I would do D but I never heard of anything harmful coming from it... i may be wrong dunno. Even if there are a million things wrong with it. God gave us the key already. He gave us the pattern to follow. It's up to us to use our brains now. If there is something else that turns out to be bad for you, don't eat it. You don't need every detail mentioned in order to follow God's Way. Please refer to the story of the cow starting with 267 to get my drift of how we should not act when approaching these matters.
Peace
-
Peace Simple
I apologize if this sounds harsh, but you really can't just pick an aya that doesn't make sense to you, and instead of trying to understand it, make up things. This is really not how deen works at all. If there are issues you have with quran I would suggest you try to research thru the real meaning, because there is a big danger in attributing falsehood to God's Word.
It's great that you take nothing for granted and use ijtihad to try to break ayaat down and get to the nitty-gritty. But when you do that, please keep in mind that you can't twist the aya to your liking.
I'm not going to break down the entire aya for you because I'm sure you've gone over it enough times to know that the aya specifically states WA MIN AL BAQAR WA AL GHANAM.... and from the cows and sheep... HARRAMNA AALAYHOM SHOHOOMAHOMA ... we forbade for them their fat.... ELLA MA HAMALAT THOHOOROHOMA AW AL HAWAYA ... except what's stuck to the back or entrails... AW MA AKHTALAT BE AATHM THALIK... or what was mixed with the bones .
This is a very detailed description of the body parts of an animal with the exact kind of animal this pertains to as well. There can be no "alternative" meaning, I'm sorry.
These were dietary laws for the Jews in order to test them. Much like their test with the she-camel. Much like their test with the cow. It is to discern the faithful from the hypocrites. Today, for Muslims God ordains to eat from all the good foods He Blessed us with. Except the meat of a dead animal, blood, and swine. Thank God, it is a simple test for us and also beneficial to our bodies to stay away from such things. You ask why God did not add, don't eat sh_t. It's just self-explanatory. It's not appetizing but perhaps bacon is. So we'd need a heads up on that one. As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with eating a monkey. Not something I would do but I never heard of anything harmful coming from it... i may be wrong dunno. Even if there are a million things wrong with it. God gave us the key already. He gave us the pattern to follow. It's up to us to use our brains now. If there is something else that turns out to be bad for you, don't eat it. You don't need every detail mentioned in order to follow God's Way. Please refer to the story of the cow starting with 267 to get my drift of how we should not act when approaching these matters.
Peace
Sorry souls,
but you need to start using your brain rather then simply follow what your given.
WE SHOULDN'T TRY AND UPHOLD EVERYTHING WE BELIEVE SIMPLY
BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN BELIEVING IT - THAT IS WHAT ALL OTHERS DO.We weigh and consider as Allah wants us to.
Do men change to swine or apes - "NO"
When two people fight you make fighting illegal , and you don't say because you are fighting you can't get married or you can't eat fat...............
that is all but if you want to keep to your belief, then to you your way and to me my way.
and i don't make up things but simply investigate the meanings of words from Arabic lexicon/ dictionary which is for people to use.And would never Accept/ follow what someone says without weighing and considering for myself.
Gods Blessings.
-
Peace Simple
Please explain to me the alternative meaning for BAQAR and GHANAM if you are truthful.
Thanks
-
Easy peoples. I must say that simples' method of translation is one of the better methods on the forum...(relatively speaking.) Taking the quran literally results in many contradictions and problems...The chopping of hands,whippings and sticks turning into snakes are just a few examples of what happens with literalism...Sticking to literalism is a very perilous and harmful position... see 1736...
-
Peace Simple
Please explain to me the alternative meaning for BAQAR and GHANAM if you are truthful.
Thanks
Salaams souls,
From lanes lex
Ghanima = earning or a gain obtained without trouble/ spoils of war.
Baqarun = Cow/ Slit/ ripped/ slit/ cut/ devide.
-
Peace Enquirer
This issue is that he's using other "meanings" for the words in the aya. So he's not taking it at all metaphorically but rather using new definitions... which ideally is fine if something doesn't make sense the way it is traditionally seen. i have no problem with searching for parrallel analogies in verses either. But this aya is literally talking about body parts of cows and sheep and what parts were permissible to eat and what parts weren't. To say that alternative definitions would equal no fighting, is something incomprehensible given the arabic words in the specific aya. I really have no problem with the idea that we should "be fair and not take things of others". It's just that this aya has nothing to do with that in the slightest- even if we look at some kind of alternaitve definition. This is why I'm asking simple to show us the evidence. How does baqar and ghanam refer to the concept he came up with?
There's no attack here at all, I just need some evidence so we can logically reach a rational conclusion.
Peace All
-
Peace Simple
Sorry I posted I think while you were psting too...so I didn't know you already answered D
Thanks for the speedy reply.
Unfortunately, you cannot use any verb forms of these root words because in the aya, it is in the noun form. Please notice the alif lam before baqar and ghanam. In the aya it is AL-BAQAR and AL-GHANAM, making it a definite noun... so it's the cow and the sheep.
I hope this clears things up
Peace All
-
Peace soul. I understand your position,i just feel that one can explain things by metaphor,dictionaries or even by cross-referencing to real life experiences...I understand your need for evidence,thats natural...However in my experience we sometimes get defensive when we feel certain 'comfortable' understandings we have are 'threatened' by new or radical alternatives...When i first heard of people reading the quran without hadith i was unconvinced,then later when folks interpreted quran without 'literalism i was again unconvinced,now im at the stage where i dont even feel we need a book or god to be decent people.....
Being a free-mind can be achieved when we let go of pre-conceptions,which are based on a need to be 'comfortable',and the need to have 'infallible' knowledge...
I feel 'reality' is half objective and half subjective....'Life is what you make it,but not completely'...
ps; sorry for the metaphysical stuff at the end...
pps; i feel the excessive use/reliance upon grammer,linguistics and verbal forms can distort the message of many books... -
Sorry Br,
with repsects
can't convince me as i believe the language has modified , developed after the quran and if anyone says men used to change into monkeys well i wouldn't couldn't accept it thanks though,men to monkeys ...............
Salaams.
-
Peace Enquirer
I definitely agree with you that there are growing pains in letting go of blind dogma and embracing a new concept as the logical conclusion. I also agree with you that you can be a wonderful person and not believe in God or any book. Whether, you live a fullfilled life and go on to eternal bliss is another debate altogether.
I think you're right that trying to gain infallible knowledge on something is impossible. We as humans are limited in our capacity to understand everything all at once. It's a journey that never ends.
However, I need to tell you that I'm not trying to gain infallible knowledge or excessively rely on linguistics. I think it's crucial however to understand the words on a page if we are to discuss it at all. If it's not necessary to understand linguistics or grammar at any level, it would be very difficult to read any book or article or even a post.
Peace Simple
If you believe the quran was modified to make the verb into a noun, then peace be with you brother. I don't understand what you keep mentioning about men and monkeys honestly... I didn't see anything about monkeys in this verse either -\ but that's ok
Peace
-
Easy soul. I do respect your manner of discussion and your open-ness...I also do agree with your point that some rudimentary knowledge of lingusitics is needed...
What place would you give metaphor in the quran,and what are the implications for grammer rules when one takes verses metaphorically? Thanks in advance... -
Peace be upon you all,
I also approach the verse about Jews being forbidden fat as metaphor also, but I dont understand it yet.
The God does not expect us to blindly believe some commandment, PROOF is required for all that we do. Why would the God command only a section of mankind to not eat the fat of an animal? What about the NON jews of that time period? Was the God condoning sectarinism?
I dont agree that "jews" are even being spoken of, I just am not sure of what its all about just yet.
-
Peace Enquirer
I believe parrallel analogies found in the quran is the miracle that makes quran so unique and could only be from Divine source.
I personally noticed this specifically with stories narrated in the quran. This is just from my own limited knowledge. Perhaps it could be found everywhere. However in regards to the stories, I believe they are literal but also have a parallel spiritual message that could only be understood if we take the meanings of the words metaphorically. It's like two meanings in one. More bang for your buck if you will D
In order to reach metaphorical conclusions, I think looking at root words for root meanings is beneficial. Again, I'm against this notion that the quran is a puzzle and we have to figure it out because it says something and means something else. But I do believe that the quran demands of us active thinking and active participation in reading it. We can't just passively read and the message just pops in our heads and we're done. So to a certain extent, understanding grammar and linguistics is mandatory. But we don't need to split hairs or make each verse into an unsolved mystery.
That's just my opinionPeace
-
Peace Enquirer
I definitely agree with you that there are growing pains in letting go of blind dogma and embracing a new concept as the logical conclusion. I also agree with you that you can be a wonderful person and not believe in God or any book. Whether, you live a fullfilled life and go on to eternal bliss is another debate altogether.
I think you're right that trying to gain infallible knowledge on something is impossible. We as humans are limited in our capacity to understand everything all at once. It's a journey that never ends.
However, I need to tell you that I'm not trying to gain infallible knowledge or excessively rely on linguistics. I think it's crucial however to understand the words on a page if we are to discuss it at all. If it's not necessary to understand linguistics or grammar at any level, it would be very difficult to read any book or article or even a post.
Peace Simple
If you believe the quran was modified to make the verb into a noun, then peace be with you brother. I don't understand what you keep mentioning about men and monkeys honestly... I didn't see anything about monkeys in this verse either -\ but that's ok
Peace
well if there arn't monkeys in that ayah they are all over other ayah's , like 002.065 005.060 007.166
and who can say what other things there aremen to pigs,
oceans splitting,
sticks to snakes
moon splitting.
................................you probably know the rest.And Its all mistranslation.
Peace
-
Salaamun alaikum,
ABbro the Quran is not about finding new conspets for the verses and I can see that is what you only do really
You're right. It's not about finding new concepts for the verses. It's about finding out original concepts of AQ and this is what Simple is doing. I may not agree with all of his conclusions, but he's asking some very deconstructive questions.
S2SI apologize if this sounds harsh, but you really can't just pick an aya that doesn't make sense to you, and instead of trying to understand it, make up things. This is really not how deen works at all. If there are issues you have with quran I would suggest you try to research thru the real meaning, because there is a big danger in attributing falsehood to God's Word.
Respected sister, Simple's not making up things. What he's doing is rejecting the presupposed notions many of us take into AQ in our quest to understand it. Lets not forget that Allah doesn't disdain from using mathalan to teach us lessons (2/26).
These were dietary laws for the Jews in order to test them. Much like their test with the she-camel. Much like their test with the cow. It is to discern the faithful from the hypocrites.
The only way for us to corroborate this is through history, a big no-no when it comes to Quranic study.
KyleThe God does not expect us to blindly believe some commandment, PROOF is required for all that we do. Why would the God command only a section of mankind to not eat the fat of an animal? What about the NON jews of that time period? Was the God condoning sectarinism?
Quite right. 'jew' is an interjected sunni term. AQ is about our lives now, not about a religious sect thousands of years ago.
-
Enquirer Easy peoples. I must say that simples' method of translation is one of the better methods on the forum...(relatively speaking.) Taking the quran literally results in many contradictions and problems...The chopping of hands,whippings and sticks turning into snakes are just a few examples of what happens with literalism...Sticking to literalism is a very perilous and harmful position... see 1736
Show the contradictions. You've started a whole thread about this before, the believers totally rebutted you and now you're up with your lies again.
When i first heard of people reading the quran without hadith
25 years ago, don't forget.
i was unconvinced,then later when folks interpreted quran without 'literalism i was again unconvinced,
It's difficult to be convinced when you don't think about it.
now im at the stage where i dont even feel we need a book or god to be decent people.....
A decent person actually doesn't accuse without evidence, or is that ok in your book?Of course, once one gives up Allah, one can do as one pleases. Please don't keep up the pretense of being decent, its nauseating.
pps; i feel the excessive use/reliance upon grammer,linguistics and verbal forms can distort the message of many books...
Excessive LACK of knowledge is dangerous too.
-
Peace MQuran
Allow me to rephrase my statement. It is my opinion that Bro Simple is making up new meanings for this aya that is not based on metaphor. According to Bro Simple himself, he uses the dictionary to find another meaning to the same words. Therefore, he's not using the same definitions, only using them metaphorically instead of literally - he is using a whole new set of definitions. In other words, he's not saying cow symbolizes something else... he's saying cow isn't even the right definition.
Finding metaphors and mithaal like you stated, is 100% fine and I have no problem with it. If he told me he believes the cow symbolizes something else, all of my posts would be totally different. He's telling me the word Al-Baqar is a verb that means to cut.
I may be completely wrong in my original hypothesis that this aya is talking about Jews and their dietary laws. But the only way to discuss it is thru looking at the words and the grammatical structures of them. This is why I asked for his definitions of those two crucial words. And when we established that these 2 words are not verbs but are nouns, then according to him the quran was modified. That basically ends the debate with me, because we both must take the quran to be without error as a given for us to discuss anything in it. Or else anything I say will just be thrown out as a modification. It's completely fine if this is his belief. I would have liked to see a more fruitful discussion breaking down all the words in the aya instead of stopping at just those two... but it's better to leave it alone if it has the potential to create bad feelings between folks.
Just wanted to clarify my position.
Peace all
-
Peace
Just another note so that nobody misunderstands me I also believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with searching for all the possible meanings for each and every word in the quran. But it must fit into the quran properly and not awkwardly and we must always be aware of grammar so that we choose the exact definition. MUDARRIS is it to teach, a school, a student, or an instructor? The only way to know is to understand grammar rules.
-
S2SAllow me to rephrase my statement. It is my opinion that Bro Simple is making up new meanings for this aya that is not based on metaphor. According to Bro Simple himself, he uses the dictionary to find another meaning to the same words. Therefore, he's not using the same definitions, only using them metaphorically instead of literally - he is using a whole new set of definitions. In other words, he's not saying cow symbolizes something else... he's saying cow isn't even the right definition.
Right, I take your point here and sadly I lack the linguistic resource to answer you.
Finding metaphors and mithaal like you stated, is 100% fine and I have no problem with it. If he told me he believes the cow symbolizes something else, all of my posts would be totally different. He's telling me the word Al-Baqar is a verb that means to cut.
Right, clearly it's not a verb but a noun. You're right once again.
I may be completely wrong in my original hypothesis that this aya is talking about Jews and their dietary laws. But the only way to discuss it is thru looking at the words and the grammatical structures of them. This is why I asked for his definitions of those two crucial words. And when we established that these 2 words are not verbs but are nouns, then according to him the quran was modified. That basically ends the debate with me, because we both must take the quran to be without error as a given for us to discuss anything in it. Or else anything I say will just be thrown out as a modification. It's completely fine if this is his belief. I would have liked to see a more fruitful discussion breaking down all the words in the aya instead of stopping at just those two... but it's better to leave it alone if it has the potential to create bad feelings between folks.
AQ lays out the groundwork, if you like, as a prelude to the exercise of understanding. 'Alladhina haadu' isn't used in AQ anywhere as a religious sect during the time of Musa. Further, to typologise such people according to their heritage is contrary to teachings of AQ.
I consider AQ error-free and if one's understanding is incorrect, contradictions will appear. Such has been the case with much of my understanding over the years in salaat, zakaat, hajj etc.
I will try to work on Simple's explanation once I obtain more linguistic resources.
shukran wa salam.