Bacon on my cheeseburger
-
I personally do not really mind if people eat pork since I believe it does not necessarily make someone a bad person. However, I also believe there is a significant reason behind God's decision to forbid blood, corpse, and pork. So I choose to stay away from what He forbids since I put my trust in Him. After all it is just ONE of unlimited kinds of animals on earth.
As for bro Tim, I do not think he is trying to deceive us at all. I believe he is just a typical westerner who uses logic to the extreme in forming his opinions.
-
Peace Boost, all,
Just on a side note, very devout Western Christians do not eat pork. Jews don't either. But it's such a troubling question to quran aloners for some strange reason...
I'm not sure that it's so important to be considered troubling.
I don't understand those on the thread that just want to follow what they think is right instead of what is stated in all 3 major religion's holy books.
Al-qur'an is the criterion. The cross-reference to other religions is irrelevant, unless of course, you want to include the possibility that the traditions of others have infected islam. This can be seen in many aspects.
So far, all those who contend that the entire quran is one huge metaphor have not proven how the prohibition of pork can be taken as such.
Agreed.
Others have even gone so far as to suggest that "khanzeer" could mean something else with no basis to their claims.
Personally, I'm open to the possibility on the basis of many arabic words having been mistranslated and accepted over the years.
And no doubt, countless others will follow a conjecture of a conjecture just because it sounds different - so it must be right!
People should think and research for themselves. Verify per 1736. If one follows conjectures just because they sound different, then pork is the least of their concerns
I'd like those who believe that this aya means something other than Do Not Eat The Meat of PiG to explain...
It's been debated ad nauseam with no convincing argument for either case.
instead of throwing unfounded possiblities and others agreeing blindly.
The possibility is not unfounded, as it is with precedent. Like I said above, many words have been mistranslated, and hence, accepted blindly. This is more dangerous, in my eyes, then suggesting new possibilities. I'm of the opinion that if something doesn't seem to fit logically, then further research is in order if you deem it's even worth it. As I stated in my original post, I'm undecided on this subject because it's been argued at length with no conclusion. Since I am a believer in the divine origin of al-qur'an, and I'm already not eating pork, I'll continue to not eat it.
It remains possible that pork can have some terrible effect on us that is as of yet undiscovered or kept hidden from us. It is also possible that "khanzeer" may not mean pork at all. That's all I'm saying. If anyone is going to follow me blindly, then they have bigger things to worry about then pork.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace
Al-qur'an is the criterion. The cross-reference to other religions is irrelevant, unless of course, you want to include the possibility that the traditions of others have infected islam. This can be seen in many aspects.
It's funny I thought if something is in al-quran and al-quran is the criterion, then anything agreeing with al-quran would be the truth and not that it infected al-quran. But it's interesting that you came to that conclusion.
Personally, I'm open to the possibility on the basis of many arabic words having been mistranslated and accepted over the years.
Just because a word or two or 50000 were "mistranslated" doesn't mean khanzeer was too.
The possibility is not unfounded, as it is with precedent.
As stated above, precedence has nothing to do with it. When I flip a coin 100 times and it's always heads, I don't have a higher or lower probability that the next one would be tails. I wonder how much of the arabic "mistranslations" people on this forum really verify and how many they just read articles about and "felt" it was a good argument and just went with it without really learning classical arabic formally.
If anyone is going to follow me blindly, then they have bigger things to worry about then pork.
Agreed.
-
I personally do not really mind if people eat pork since I believe it does not necessarily make someone a bad person. However, I also believe there is a significant reason behind God's decision to forbid blood, corpse, and pork. So I choose to stay away from what He forbids since I put my trust in Him. After all it is just ONE of unlimited kinds of animals on earth.
As for bro Tim, I do not think he is trying to deceive us at all. I believe he is just a typical westerner who uses logic to the extreme in forming his opinions.
Peace
With all respect to Tim ...
" I do not understand the Quraan properly, so it can not be literal and should be metaphorical"
...is not sound logic
-
Peace Boost,
You stated
It's funny I thought if something is in al-quran and al-quran is the criterion, then anything agreeing with al-quran would be the truth and not that it infected al-quran. But it's interesting that you came to that conclusion.
I'm not sure how something can infect the qur'an. That's not what I said at all. I said traditions have infected islam.
Just because a word or two or 50000 were "mistranslated" doesn't mean khanzeer was too.
But it is a possibility, that's all I stated.
As stated above, precedence has nothing to do with it. When I flip a coin 100 times and it's always heads, I don't have a higher or lower probability that the next one would be tails
I don't see the relevance as we're not discussing probabilities. You asked for a basis for my claim. My claim was that it's possible(yet inconclusive) khanzeer has been mistranslated. This is based on the fact that many other words have been mistranslated. Thus the possibility has a basis.
eg.
Jack went to the store.
Many stores sell newspapers.
It's possible that the store Jack went to sells newspapers.I wonder how much of the arabic "mistranslations" people on this forum really verify and how many they just read articles about and "felt" it was a good argument and just went with it without really learning classical arabic formally.
Me too.
Peace,
Tay -
ohhhh I just love logic puzzles reminds me of my fun with lsats long ago
;D
I agree with your post. Thanks for clarifying.
peace
-
But it is a possibility, that's all I stated.
I don't see the relevance as we're not discussing probabilities. You asked for a basis for my claim. My claim was that it's possible(yet inconclusive) khanzeer has been mistranslated. This is based on the fact that many other words have been mistranslated. Thus the possibility has a basis.
Peace Tay,
Among other things that lead me to share your thought on the possibility that "khanzeer" has been mistranslated is when God uses the word "Lahma" before it. If God were to state the prohibition on this specific animal, God would simply use the word to describe the whole part of the animal rather than confining to the meat only. To imagine that pig instentine, liver, heart, lard are permissible when the scripture only forbid the meat creates a loopholes in the Scripture that suppose to provide clear and details guidance for the mankind.
I have come to the conclusion that neither the "Lahma" nor "Khanzeerin" has been correctly translated to the actual meaning as intended by our Creator.
Obviously explanations given by Priest Bokmei should give a fair reasoning on why "Khanzeerin" should be read as "bad/rotten" instead of "pig". As for the "Lahma" I realized that it simply refer to "food" and not meat as generally understood. The changes from "food" to become "meat" happend from what is termed as "Semantic drift" that is common with any language that evolved from one generation to another.
Take for example "food" as found in Old English.
Semantic change - http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_drift
Semantic shift
Semantic shift occurs as a word moves from one set of circumstances to another, resulting in an extension of the range of meanings. An example of this is navigator, which once applied only to ships but, with the development of planes and cars, now applies to multiple forms of travel. Another example is Old English, meat, (or rather mete), which referred to all forms of solid food while flesh (fl?sc) referred to animal tissue, and food (foda) referred to animal fodder. Meat was eventually restricted to flesh of animals, then flesh restricted to the tissue of humans and food was generalized to refer to all forms of solid food (Jeffers & Lehiste).Classical Arabic as one of the Semitic languages has undergone similar transformation whereby the same word over the time can carry different meaning and this possibilities cannot simply be left ignored.
Another article on "Food" in Classical Arabic.
Semitic languages http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages
Sometimes certain roots differ in meaning from one Semitic language to another. For example, the root b-y-#7693; in Arabic has the meaning of "white" as well as "egg", whereas in Hebrew it only means "egg". The root l-b-n means "milk" in Arabic, but the color "white" in Hebrew. The root l-h-m means "meat" in Arabic but "bread" in Hebrew and "cow" in Ethiosemitic languages; the original meaning was most probably "food". The word medina has the meaning of "city" in Arabic, and "metropolis" in Amharic, but in Hebrew it means "state".God certainly has taken into consideration the limitation of human language in delivering the message to the mankind. Thus we can see similar words being used in other verse. This among others to guide us to see and understand the actual meaning of the words as intended by our Creator. Without this, there would be many contradictions. refer Q482
As we can see, earlier bro Edip mentioned that from his understanding with the word "Khanzeerin" as pig, he willingly accept the statement that God had indeed turned certain human to become pigs and monkeys, (refer Q560) although this understanding defies any physical law created by God himself. Indeed another contradiction made by God?
Q2173, 53, 6145, 16115 in essence tells us to avoid eating carrion, live animal (blood), bad food, and making offering of animals/foods, unless we believe God needs us to supply food to Him.
Salam sejahtera from Malaysia.
-
peace
Idolfree1 posted somethign about "don't eat pork" being symbolic for us not to get greedy because we are told to eat the meat of birds (which symbolize higher state of mind) and not to eat the meat of an animal who wallows in the mud. Good and interesting observation, but I can't say that it was a strong argument for a non literal explanation.The fact is that it's human nature to ask questions, to want answers. God would not ignore that. God would not torture us with experiments and tests. God wouldn't make us go against our nature and burn us in hell for eternity if we fail. No.
It's not a test of faith. The "don't eat pig's meat" part. Just like everything else, it's supposed to be better for us.What I can't understand is why the quran tells us about pigs, but not about other deadly things we can eat. If it's a complete book, and eating right is part of our perfect way of life, then why does the quran list only ONE animal out of hundreds that are harmful to us, and for some reason that animal isn't any unhealthier than other animals which followers of the Quran eat all the time.
There is something we are obviously missing here. We can't leave it at "God asked us to so we should," or "it's a test." -
Peace Phil,
While Priest Bokmei's arguments certainly piqued my interest, there were some logical fallacies which left me undecided. The whole "khanzeer" = bad/rotten argument does not hold up to logic based on the 2nd to last sentence in ayah 2173 Whoever finds himself forced out of need and without disobedience or animosity, then there is no sin upon him.
Imagine, God would sanction eating rotten meat out of need? We don't have the stomachs, literally, to be able to digest rotten meat without getting severely, even deathly, ill. The other forbiddances I can see as tolerable out of need, including pork. But rotten meat is never a good idea.
And then there's the whole grammatical thing, but no need in rehashing that now.
Anyway, like I said, I choose to err on the side of caution without much conviction because it doesn't really seem that important and I'm already used to not eating it. It's one less fatty food to curb myself from
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Tay,
While Priest Bokmei's arguments certainly piqued my interest, there were some logical fallacies which left me undecided. The whole "khanzeer" = bad/rotten argument does not hold up to logic...
Exactly... do we need to be told not to eat "rotten meat"? yuck Are we to believe that people were eating the stuff all over the stuff, until they were told, okay, you need to stop that disgusting habit. hypno -
Peace be with you
Excellent point Tay
Quote Phil
?.As we can see, earlier bro Edip mentioned that from his understanding with the word "Khanzeerin" as pig, he willingly accept the statement that God had indeed turned certain human to become pigs and monkeys, (refer Q560) although this understanding defies any physical law created by God himself. Indeed another contradiction made by God?
Peace Phil
What are the physical laws that God is bound by?
-
Peace tay
I choose to err on the side of caution without much conviction because it doesn't really seem that important and I'm already used to not eating it.
...that's exactely my stand on the question as well - for the time being. Concerning the ongoing discussion around khanzeer - rotten or pig - no one really was able to convince me either.
lk
-
Peace Phil
Quote Phil
........If God were to state the prohibition on this specific animal, God would simply use the word to describe the whole part of the animal rather than confining to the meat only. To imagine that pig instentine, liver, heart, lard are permissible when the scripture only forbid the meat creates a loopholes in the Scripture that suppose to provide clear and details guidance for the mankind.....
Who said pig instentine, liver, heart are allowed. Does the Quraan say it or you guessed ?
In biology, an organ is a group of tissues that perform a specific function or group of functions. Usually there is a main tissue and sporadic tissues. Biological tissue is a collection of interconnected cells that perform a similar function within an organism. The parts of the animal you mentioned are made up of different kind of muscle tissue. In animals organs include the heart, lungs, brain, eye, stomach, spleen, bones, pancreas, kidneys, liver, intestines, skin, uterus, and bladder. But please notice fat/lard is not included in the list. I guess meat will include the parts or organs you mentioned at least at the meat counter.
This is not my area of expertise I hope someone with knowledge in this area will be able to give definitions for each if you require.
-
Why do the pig threads always get the love? I think after discussing (a few months back was it? It seems like a bad dream), I've come to the realisation to each his own. Some people may be interpreting it through cultural baggage, some because they might want to do something or be something that they thought they couldn't, some because they want to be different/revolutionary etc, the list goes on. I don't think anyone of us can claim we are objective in all aspects of the reading and our biases in one way or the other do come in, the only difference is they come in on different angles with different people of course.
Is the quran clear, of course it is. We just need to sort our priorities out and keep it simple and consistent in practice. Conceptually, be as wild as you like
Peace