Bacon on my cheeseburger
-
Peace Tay,
Lane's Lexicon gives the following meanings of "maytatan"
Carrion; that which has not been slaughtered in the manner prescribed by the law; that of which the life has departed without slaughter; what has died a natural death; what has been killed in a state or manner different from that prescribed by the law.
It seems that it gives both meanings "carrion", and that which is already dead and not slaughtered.
But is that the proper translation? If not, and it is just "dead", then my point still stands.
Even if "maytatan" means that which is already dead (not killed for food) and not carrion in the qur'aanic context, I need your answer to the following question that I proposed in my last post but perhaps you missed
An animal could have died moments before one arrives on the scene.
Regarding this particular situation/possibility that you mentioned, how did this animal die ? Please list the various possibilities. Depending on your answer I will advance my argument.
And thanks for the links.
You are most welcome bro.
Peace
-
Peace Tanveer, Andya,
OK, so it's clear that maytatan does not necessarily mean rotten or bad. From a logical standpoint then, it is not redundant to say "dead animals and rotten/bad food/meat".
Regarding this particular situation/possibility that you mentioned, how did this animal die ? Please list the various possibilities. Depending on your answer I will advance my argument.
OK, here's 2 of each...
- Heart failure
- A stray bullet to the skull
- A bite from a Komodo dragon
- Drowning in a swamp
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Tay, all,
- Heart failure
- A stray bullet to the skull
- A bite from a Komodo dragon
- Drowning in a swamp
As is evident from the above list that majority of the times an animal is found dead it has been overly stressed for a period of time before death. This results in a higher than normal release of cortisol, and catecholamines and also rapid metabolism of muscle glycogen resulting in the muscle glycogen stores depleted before death which causes very little lactic acid production after death (glycogen is metabolised to lactic acid). This results in a higher than normal PH of the dead meat resulting in meat that looks dark, firm and dry (DFD meat). DFD meat means that the carcass was from an animal that was stressed, injured or diseased before its death.
It is necessary for animals to be stress and injury free prior to slaughter, so as not to unnecessarily deplete muscle glycogen reserves. This is in order to allow for muscle glycogen to be replaced by the body as much as possible. It is important that the glycogen levels in the muscles of the dead carcass are as high as possible, to develop the maximum level of lactic acid in the meat. This acid gives meat an ideal pH level, measured after 24 hours after slaughter, of 6.2 or lower. The 24h (or ultimate) pH higher than 6.2 indicates that the animal was stressed, injured or diseased prior to its death. Slaughter, if done properly, does not cause as much stress as prolonged stress, injury or disease before death and does not raise the PH of the meat that much.
Slaughter, in fact is sudden high stress, which does not result in muscle glycogen stores being depleted before death and actually causes higher levels of lactic acid in the muscles after death due to breakdown of glycogen to lactic acid AFTER death. This results in meat that has slower bacterial growth and thus longer time to spoilage and longer shelf life.
Lactic acid in the muscle has the effect of retarding the growth of bacteria that have contaminated the carcass. These bacteria cause spoilage of the meat during storage, particularly in warmer environments, and the meat develops off-smells, colour changes, rancidity and slime. This is spoilage, and these processes decrease the shelf life of meat, thus causing wastage of valuable food. If the contaminating bacteria are those of the food poisoning type, the consumers of the meat become sick, resulting in costly treatment and loss of manpower hours to the national economies. DFD meat from animals, resulting from stress, injuries, or disease before death, has very low amounts of lactic acid and high PH which favors rapid bacterial growth and faster spoilage and much reduced shelf life.
The DFD meat also has higher cortisol and catecholamine levels than properly slaughtered meat and studies have shown that such meat has higher fat content and lower lean meat content which also makes it more unhealthy than regular meat from properly slaughtered animals.
The DFD meat is also less palatable and does not taste as good as regular meat and consumers tend not to buy it because of its appearance and the inferior taste.
This DFD meat is found in the majority of animals that are found dead and have not been slaughtered for food and is INTRINSICALLY BAD MEAT with low lactic acid levels and high PH resulting in faster microbial spoilage, and also with higher fat content and lower lean meat content. Thus the meat of an animal that is found dead is INTRINSICALLY BAD MEAT even if the animal died few moments before one arrived on the scene, and can be easily perceived as bad because of the dark, firm and dry (DFD) appearance. Such meat, therefore is a subset of PERCEIVED TO BE BAD MEAT/FOOD and therefore, usage of "perceived to be bad meat" and "dead meat" together would be redundant.
References
http//cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16448469
http//www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6909E/x6909e04.htm
http//www.fass.org/fass01/pdfs/Berg.pdf
http//ag.ansc.purdue.edu/meat_quality/meat_quality_problems.html
http//ag.ansc.purdue.edu/meat_quality/mqf_stress.html
http//www.naturalhub.com/buy_food_meat_tenderness.htm
http//cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16741936
http//www.meatscience.org/Pubs/factsheets/q-variationinporklean.pdf
Peace
-
Peace Tanveer,
Thank you kindly for the wealth of info. It is definitely enriching. Not to split hairs or anything, but we are dealing with all possibilities in order to gain a greater insight. That being said, I don't believe the information you provided can apply to examples 1 and 2, since both are sudden deaths equivalent to "proper slaughter".
Nevertheless, one can not really know how long an animal has been dead unless there is overwhelming evidence of it's safe (from a dining standpoint) demise. I would say that it's not a good idea - unless the situation deemed it absolutely necessary - just as God has advised.
My other question which got overlooked earlier in the thread would be regarding rotten/bad meat. When a banana, for instance, is starting to spoil, it's easy to break off the browning section and eat the good stuff. Can the same be said for meat? Can you cut away the rotting areas and have something salvagable?
Thanks again for your insights.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Phil,
No I did not miss any of your posts but PERHAPS YOU MISSED WHAT YOU WROTE IN YOUR OWN POSTS !! as I will shortly demonstrate.
But first allow me to point to another fallacy in your argument. You are building an argument based not on facts but conjecture
The above quoted from your post at http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=7059.msg107309#msg107309
Most probably = conjecture. Please show factual evidence as opposed to conjectures.
Peace Tanveer,
Sorry for the late reply.
I wonder whether you would be asking the same line of question if the author from Wiki decided to say, "The root l-h-m means "meat" in Arabic but "bread" in Hebrew and "cow" in Ethiosemitic languages; the original meaning was definitely 'food'."?
The finding from the Wiki is not the only basis on how I came to my current understanding on the issue.
As I have told earlier, I had the doubt on the meaning of "Lahma Khinzeerin" amongst others from the usage of "Lahma" itself. If Lahma means meat, and Khinzeerin means pig, then what about other part of the animal? Why God leaves other part of this animal hanging without explanation and yet claim the Qur'an is a detailed scripture? Or are you saying that pig's intenstine and lard are permissible? What are the rationales that meat is prohibited but not the rest?
Common sense that I have, tells me that there's something wrong somewhere with the common understanding of these words.
Khinzeerin cannot mean pig simply because I believe God won't turn human into pyhsical pig but rather the usage of the word khinzr simply is to denote the characteristic of being bad.
Talking about conjecture, please tell me based on your understanding of the so-called fact, how God surely had turned human into pig?
Now I will demonstrate what you missed recollecting from your own earlier posts !
You yourself translate lahma khinzeerin = "perceived as rotten/bad MEAT" instead of food
You have quoted my statement out of context. Let's see the whole picture of the argument.
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.
I believe the translation is not "rotten meat" but rather "perceived as rotten/bad meat". There's no specific details on how should/can we perceive/define rotten/bad meat and therefore the criteria is left to us to decide using our senses ability. Nevertheless, common sense will also tell us to avoid carrion and life animal beside than rotten meat. Despite that, God tells us that it is not a sin if we were forced to consume these categories of food out of necessity.
My first reply to Tay was to address his translation of "rotten meat" since the key word which is "perceived" was missing. Thus as seen in my reply, Tay's translation should have been "perceived as rotten/bad meat".
When this is understood, then only I came with the actual question with my proposed translation of which can be seen in my subsequent question.
I fail to see the rational when applying your logic that says ok to eat carrion out of necessity, but not to "bad/rotten food". Any explanation, if you don't mind?
As you can see, my line of arguments are based on the understanding of "Lahma" is Food and not meat.
The above from your post at http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=7059.msg107404#msg107404
In the same post you yourself admit that BOTH "lahma khinzeerin" and "maytatan" are categories of food
The bolded and underlined parts of your quote show that according to you yourself
rotten/bad meat + carrion = categories of FOOD
And now you are suggesting that carrion is not category of food ?
What kind of logic is that ?
Carrion/dead animal and rotten/bad food are two separate group of foods. Nowhere that i can recall I ever suggested that these are not categories of food. Please read again my statements.
Since when is carrion not subset of or category of food ? Actually the word is "maytatan" which means "that which is dead", which includes not just meat but everything of a carrion and all that is category of food as per your own admission.
You obviously misquoted my statement.
Thus even if you FALSELY translate "lahma khinzeerin" based on your CONJECTURE as "bad FOOD", carrion is still a subset of food and thus mentioning both terms together would be redundant.
Bad food does not have to be meat. It can be of any kind of food. Hope this is clear enough for you.
Also consider the following sign
6145 Say "I do not find in what is inspired to me forbidden except that it be already dead, or blood, or the meat of pig, for it is foul; or what is corruptly dedicated to other than God."
If "lahma khinzeerin" = "rotten/bad meat/food" then saying that bad food is foul is also redundant. It is common sense that rotten/bad meat/food is foul, and adding "for it is foul" in 6145 would be redundant.
You are advocating against the fallacy. Now tell me why pig meat is foul?
Not to forget the grammatical rules which do not allow "khinzeerin" to be an adjective of "lahma" the way the phrase is constructed in the arabic language, and in that phrase, the way it is written in al-qur'aan, "khinzeerin" can only be a noun. This is not just according to arabic grammar but also is confirmed by the internal structure of similar phrases used in al-qur'aan. This has been discussed ad nauseum in previous forum discussions on this topic and you can use the search function to locate them. Following are few links where this noun issue has been discussed in depth
Arabic grammar? I rather look at the context of the message. Grammatically it is correct to say God changed human to pig. But I choose not to agree on that. It against my common sense. Not to mention that God will break His own Law of Creation.
Peace .
-
Peace
The first rule of food is to eat which is lawful and good.
Why should there be a word or a verse specifically instructing not to eat bad food ?
2 168
Yusuf Ali O ye people! eat of what is on earth lawful and good; and do not follow the footsteps of the evil one for he is to you an avowed enemy.5 4
Yusuf Ali They ask thee what is lawful to them (as food) say Lawful unto you are (all) things good and pure and what ye have taught your trained hunting animals (to catch) in the manner directed to you by Allah; eat what they catch for you but pronounce the name of Allah over it and fear Allah; for Allah is swift in taking account.5 5
Yusuf Ali This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers but chaste women among the People of the Book revealed before your time when ye give them their due dowers and desire chastity not lewdness nor secret intrigues. If anyone rejects faith fruitless is his work and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).16 114
Yusuf Ali So eat of the sustenance which Allah has provided for you lawful and good; and be grateful for the favors of Allah if it is He whom ye serve. -
Peace Warner, Phil, Tay, all,
Thank you brother Warner for the excellent observations and a dose of some common sense and logic.
Brother Tay, heart failure does not ALWAYS result in sudden death, and majority of times death due to heart failure is not sudden. Heart failure could be due to many causes, and if it results from arrhythmias then it could result in sudden death. Even heart failure resulting from heart attack does not usually result in instantaneous death. Also majority of times a stray bullet kills an animal, the shooting was done for the purpose of hunting. It is very rare for a stray bullet to kill an animal when the intention was not to kill the animal. In addition to that, a stray bullet does not ALWAYS kill the animal instantaneously, and majority of times, if it kills the animal, the death is slow. Thus majority of the causes of death you gave do not result in sudden death and would thus result in DFD meat, which can easily be PERCEIVED to be rotten/bad.
Brother Phil, if only meat of pig is forbidden then obviously the fat of pig is excluded from that. Intestines are made of smooth muscle, and as meat = muscle, intestines would come under meat.
As to why pig meat is "rijsun", I already gave numerous links which show that scientifically. Perhaps we need to undertake further scientific research on this issue, which might uncover even more reasons as to why it is "rijsun".
In addition to that, "perceived to be bad meat/food" is not always unhealthy or harmful when eaten. For example pale, soft and exudative PSE meat is not harmful and is thus safe to eat, even though it LOOKS bad (please see links in my previous post to Tay). PSE meat is actually even safer than regular meat because of the lower PH and thus even slower bacterial growth and thus even longer shelf life. 20-30 % of the properly slaughtered meat can be PSE meat sometimes (http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2102581&dopt=Abstract). Therefore, how can The God forbid ALL perceived to be bad meat/food, when some of it is not harmful at all ?
For all of the readers
The same word pig in the two following sentences means different things even in English
He is a pig = "He is a person who is gluttonous, or very fat, or greedy, or selfish, or filthy", but cannot mean "he is an animal called pig".
Pig meat is bad for us; in this sentence, pig meat CAN ONLY MEAN THE MEAT OF THE ANIMAL PIG.
Similarly, he is an ape = "he is ugly, or clumsy, or boorish person".
References please see "ape" and "pig" in dictionary.com.
Same is the usage of "alkhinzeer" in al-qur'aan; "lahma alkhinzeer" can only mean "meat of pig" in al-qur'aan and where it says God turned some humans into pigs and apes, it can mean that those humans were turned into gluttonous, or very fat, or greedy, or selfish, or filthy persons (pigs) and ugly, or boorish, or clumsy persons (apes).
I think the argument of whether "lahma alkhinzeer" means "perceived to be rotten/bad meat" in al-qur'aan can be made only if "lahma alkhinzeer" CAN mean "perceived to be rotten/bad meat" in the arabic language. According to the rules of the arabic language, in the phrase "lahma alkhinzeer", "alkhinzeer" can ONLY be a noun and it is IMPOSSIBLE for "alkhinzeer" to be an adjective of "lahma".
This has been discussed ad nauseum in prior discussions on this forum. Some links on this issue are as follows
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=4172.0
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=4484.msg64639#msg64639
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=4484.msg64987#msg64987
Thus it is a moot point to discuss whether "lahma alkhinzeer" means "perceived to be rotten/bad meat" when it CANNOT POSSIBLY mean that in the arabic language.
Oh, by the way, "khinzeer" comes from the root "KH Z R" meaning "cunning, intelligent, crafty", and not "KH N Z" meaning "rotten, stinking, foul smelling". Reference "KH N Z R" in Lane's Lexicon at the following link for Project Root List
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm
Thus it is impossible for it to mean "rotten/bad" anyway.
This makes me wonder how come no one is trying to prove that "lahma alkhinzeer" can mean "intelligent/cunning/crafty meat"
Peace