"Why has Allah forbidden eating Pork?"

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

Greetings,


Science answers many questions about ill-health, whereas religion answers none.



Well, if there's no evidence for it being unclean outside of the "unseen reasons" you suggest, then you have to question god's judgment on this one.

All the Christians I know have no compunction about eating pork. They don't obey all the laws in the Old Testament, in case you didn't know.



Right, so why do we have people trying to justify the prohibition on pork on the grounds that it's supposed to be unhealthy?

Peace

""Right, so why do we have people trying to justify the prohibition on pork on the grounds that it's supposed to be unhealthy?"""

Would you eat the things that pigs,,and might add--Dogs eat, like their own filth ....That should tell you thats rather unhealthy....and if God says it, that its true ..I know I for one am not about to eat something that eats its own, and others filth

format_quote Originally Posted by renak

I'm not trying to be mean, but do you eat chicken? They eat their own filth, the filth of other chickens, and about anything else they can find.

No..but eat lots of fish.....vegtables...fruit...

Bad effects of pork consumption

Pig's bodies contain many toxins, worms and latent diseases (Ed: That's what cooking is for. And other animals have diseases like BSE, Salmonella et al). Although some of these infestations are harbored in other animals, modern veterinarians say that pigs are far more predisposed to these illnesses than other animals (Ed: Where do these people get their scientific information?). This could be because pigs like to scavenge and will eat any kind of food, including dead insects, worms (Ed: Chickens eat worms), rotting carcasses, excreta (including their own), garbage, and other pigs (Ed: Rabbits are like this too, eating their own excrement and other unsavoury 'foods'. Anyhow, modern pigs are raised in hygenic conditions).

Influenza (flu) is one of the most famous illnesses which pigs share with humans. This illness is harbored in the lungs of pigs during the summer months and tends to affect pigs and humans in the cooler months. Sausage contains bits of pigs' lungs, so those who eat pork sausage tend to suffer more during epidemics of influenza (Ed: That's what cooking is for. And sausages contain many things. Beef sausages contain spinal cord, brain tissue etc. And let's not even talk about Hamburgers). Pig meat contains excessive quantities of histamine and imidazole compounds, which can lead to itching and inflammation; growth hormone, which promotes inflammation and growth; sulphur-containing mesenchymal mucus, which leads to swelling and deposits of mucus in tendons and cartilage, resulting in arthritis, rheumatism, etc (Ed: ???). Sulphur helps cause firm human tendons and ligaments to be replaced by the pig's soft mesenchymal tissues (Ed: !!! This sounds like total hogwash. Replacement of your tissues by the pigs? This has already become worse than Creation 'Science'), and degeneration of human cartilage. Eating pork can also lead to gallstones and obesity, probably due to its high cholesterol and saturated fat content (Ed: Consuming palm oil leads to Coronary Heart Disease). The pig is the main carrier of the taenia solium worm, which is found it its flesh. These tapeworms are found in human intestines with greater frequency in nations where pigs are eaten. This type of tapeworm can pass through the intestines and affect many other organs, and is incurable once it reaches beyond a certain stage. One in six people in the US and Canada has trichinosis from eating trichina worms which are found in pork. Many people have no symptoms to warn them of this, and when they do, they resemble symptoms of many other illnesses. These worms are not noticed during meat inspections, nor are they killed by salting or smoking. Few people cook the meat long enough to kill the trichinae. The rat (another scavenger) also harbors this disease. There are dozens of other worms, germs, diseases and bacteria which are commonly found in pigs, many of which are specific to the pig, or found in greater frequency in pigs. (Ed: Modern pigs are not as sickly as ancient ones)

Pigs are biologically similar to humans, and their meat is said to taste similar to human flesh (Ed: By who? Has the writer tasted both himself? Anyway, why does that makes it wrong to eat pig flesh? For all we know, human meat could be DELICIOUS, and the only thing stopping us from eating human meat is the fact that it's taboo to eat one of your own kind. So, eating something that TASTES like human meat is perfectly fine. Vegetarian meat is similar in composition to real meat [proteins] and it tastes similar to real meat, does it make it any more wrong for a vegan to eat vegetarian meat?). Pigs have been used for dissection in biology labs due to the similarity between their organs and human organs (Ed: So have frogs and rabbits). People with insulin-dependent diabetes usually inject themselves with pig insulin (Ed: I sympathise with Muslim diabetics. Actually, porcine insulin isn't used anymore!). If you pour Coke (yes, the soda) on a slab of pork, and wait a little while, you will see worms crawl out of it (Ed: ???. This is really astoundingly grossly wrong. Maybe the pork used for the aforementioned experiment was left to rot for several days first).

format_quote Originally Posted by renak

Well...did you know that many fish eat their own offspring and/or scavengers (eating any filth they can find)?

I guess if we look hard enough we can find lots of things....But I "follow" God's words, and not sit around and laugh , as he does know all...far more than any human..He did create us ..so "smile on" peace to u

Is Pork Forbidden to Muslims Only?

The Jews and Christians are also forbidden from eating pork. Here is a quote from the Old Testament to that effect: "And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud (Ed: Isn't chewing the cud disgusting and shouldn't that make Cows Haram?), it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase." Deuteronomy 14:8 Many Christians believe that this verse was directed only at the Jews (Ed: Most. And how many Christians do not eat pork?).

format_quote Originally Posted by Chuck

That's mistranslation and furthermore, it is not an obligatory issue from the pov of Quran.

Really? What is the right translation then? Why is it so many Muslim scholars failed to notice this was a mistranslation until you (or Jamal Badawi I assume) did?

Another mistranslation.

See above.

That depends on the situation and context... in general it is not compulsory.

Really? Can all the hudd punishments be gotten around so easily?

Another mistranlsation and taken out of context.

See above.

I didn't check translation and context, but why adultery should be acceptable in the first place? Which one is worse: discouraging through flogging or killing millions of unwanted babies every year through abortion?

This is a logical falacy called the Excluded Middle. Just because someone has mentioned one extreme policy, it does not make sense to insist that the only alternative is another extreme. The West used to have very low abortion rates and still did not flog adulterers.

And the reference is wrong - married adulterers should be stoned surely?

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

Really? What is the right translation then? Why is it so many Muslim scholars failed to notice this was a mistranslation until you (or Jamal Badawi I assume) did?

You should ask them who failed to notice this, I can't give an answer on their behalf. However:
1. Same word has been translated as "part" for Moses (pbuh) parting the sea.
2. Take any old comprehensive arabic dictionary (before Jamal Badawi or I were born) and you will see that the word used in that verse also means part, seperate, or leave.
3. Separate or leave the wife makes more sense with the flow since it comes right after separating from bed.
4. Prophet (pbuh) said: "It is better for a leader to make a mistake in forgiving than to make a mistake in punishing." (Al-Tirmidhi) In other words, scholars (or any other person) should consider lenient translation deducing anything from Quran if it has multiple meaning.

This word has almost universally been translated here as "beating". Such a translation is supported by some passages in the Qur'an where the word does mean smiting or striking (2:60, 61, 73, 8:12, 50, 7:160 etc). But in many other Qur'anic passages there are other meanings of the word. Thus the word can mean constructing or coining something such as coining mathal or similitude (14:24, 16:75-76, 30:28, 36:27 etc). The word is also used to separate two things. In 20:77 it is used of the splitting of the sea to make a way for the children of Israel to escape and in 57:13 it is used of making a wall to separate the two groups of people in the hereafter. Leaving, withdrawing or taking away is the meaning in 43:5. In 13:17 the word is used of separating truth and falsehood. The word can also mean campaigning or traveling in the land, e.g., for the purpose of trade (2:273, 73:20).

In the present context, the Qur'anic usage allows two meanings:
1) separating from the wives in the sense of living apart from them,
2) beating them.
3) The Arabic language also allows a third meaning: have sex with them.

The first meaning fits the context well, for some kind of physical separation is a very understandable step after suspension of sexual relations does not work. The second meaning is more natural from a linguistic point of view and has the support of a strong consensus among the commentators. The third meaning has no support in the Qur'anic usage.

See full article for more information: http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Quran-4-34.htm

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

See above.

The proper translation is 'protectors' since it was reveled at the time when muslims were looking towards Jews in Madina to help them fight against the Makkans.

Regarding making non-muslim friends there is another verse that clarifies this issue:

"Allah forbids you not, With regard to those who Fight you not for (your) Faith Nor drive you out Of your homes, From dealing kindly and justly With them: For Allah loveth Those who are just. (The Noble Quran, 60:8)"

The above verse clearly leaves out those non-muslims who don't fight us.

Furthermore Quran states:

Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of God all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous. (The Noble Quran, 3:113-114)

Why would Allah stop us from making friends whom Allah ranks with the righteous?

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

Really? Can all the hudd punishments be gotten around so easily?

-------------------

See above.

Here is an article that explains how Islamic law works: http://www.islamic-study.org/Islamic%20Penal%20Law.htm

I'll quote some passages:

Let us illustrate the psychological effect of the severity of punishment on people’s behavior. According to Islamic law, the maximum penalty for professional theft is cutting hands. It should be understood that this policy does not mean that for every theft there is a hand to be cut. The judge exercises other forms of penalties such as imprisonments or fines.
...............................
Flexibility and Ambiguity
Relaxing or stiffening a penalty for a particular violation is an integral part of the Islamic Law. Penalty in the Islamic Law is dependent on the nature of the crime. Factors such as severity of damage, the background of the violator, his or her intent and repeatability, play a major role in determining the extent of the penalty.

Furthermore, The Prophet said: “Avoid (the maximum) penalty (hudud) on the account of ambiguity (shubuhat).” Since the punishment is mainly used as deterrent, if the intent of the law in a particular case is fulfilled, the judge then has the discretion to apply a lower sentence and avoid the maximum penalty.

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

This is a logical falacy called the Excluded Middle. Just because someone has mentioned one extreme policy, it does not make sense to insist that the only alternative is another extreme. The West used to have very low abortion rates and still did not flog adulterers.

I don't have the time to check the demographics, social issues, and abortion rate of every country, but estimated current global monthly average 1,225,000 abortions is quiet high (source). And muslims countries doesn't have abortion rates, but here is something interesting:

Because Muslims are not as promiscuous as the rest of the human race they have largely avoided AIDS. While there is some danger that most of a generation in some sub-Sahara countries will die of AIDS, the rate of infection in Muslim countries is typically less than one in a thousand adults.

Source: http://www.geocities.com/richleebruce/b/islam.html

We have managed to relatively avoid AIDS; perhaps we are doing something right.

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

And the reference is wrong - married adulterers should be stoned surely?

1. Quran doesn't state stoning for married adulterers.
2. In an argument someone brought a point that the word used in the Quran for adulterers is applicable to both married and non-married.
3. Hadiths doesn't make it clear when the stoning punishment was used: when Muslims were following Mosaic Law in this matter or after the revelation of the verse on adultery.
4. Prophet (pbuh) said that if a ruler/leader/judge makes a mistake than he should make it in forgiveness rather than punishment.

In the light of above points I'm not in favor of stoning married adulterers.

format_quote Originally Posted by Chuck

You should ask them who failed to notice this, I can't give an answer on their behalf. However:
1. Same word has been translated as "part" for Moses (pbuh) parting the sea.
2. Take any old comprehensive arabic dictionary (before Jamal Badawi or I were born) and you will see that the word used in that verse also means part, seperate, or leave.

Actually I can just take a few recent translations,

004.034
YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

But if I was uninterested in doing that, I could look at your source, which says

"beat them or separate them (from you)". If even suspension of sexual relations fails to work, then it is suggested that men use dharb. This word has almost universally been translated here as "beating". Such a translation is supported by some passages in the Qur'an where the word does mean smiting or striking (2:60, 61, 73, 8:12, 50, 7:160 etc). But in many other Qur'anic passages there are other meanings of the word. Thus the word can mean constructing or coining something such as coining mathal or similitude (14:24, 16:75-76, 30:28, 36:27 etc). The word is also used to separate two things. In 20:77 it is used of the splitting of the sea to make a way for the children of Israel to escape and in 57:13 it is used of making a wall to separate the two groups of people in the hereafter. Leaving, withdrawing or taking away is the meaning in 43:5. In 13:17 the word is used of separating truth and falsehood. The word can also mean campaigning or traveling in the land, e.g., for the purpose of trade (2:273, 73:20).

So it is almost universally translated as beating. The main meaning is to strike. The secondary one is simply extensions of that (you "strike" coins in English based on the old fashioned method of producing them by hitting a disk with a hammer). Once it is used to separate the sea (perhaps Moses hit it with his staff?). It is also used for a few other words that do not immediately seem to have a lot to do with beating. But the main meaning seems clear to me.

3. Separate or leave the wife makes more sense with the flow since it comes right after separating from bed.

I think that beating makes more sence - trying reasoning, trying emotional coldness, then beat. But it is probably a matter of opinion. Your sources admits to "almost universally".

4. Prophet (pbuh) said: "It is better for a leader to make a mistake in forgiving than to make a mistake in punishing." (Al-Tirmidhi) In other words, scholars (or any other person) should consider lenient translation deducing anything from Quran if it has multiple meaning.

I would support that as a concept if I were a Muslim but it is not my problem because I am not.

In the present context, the Qur'anic usage allows two meanings:
1) separating from the wives in the sense of living apart from them,
2) beating them.
3) The Arabic language also allows a third meaning: have sex with them.

The first meaning fits the context well, for some kind of physical separation is a very understandable step after suspension of sexual relations does not work. The second meaning is more natural from a linguistic point of view and has the support of a strong consensus among the commentators. The third meaning has no support in the Qur'anic usage.

Right. So it is not a mistranslation, it is a poor choice of possible translations?

The proper translation is 'protectors' since it was reveled at the time when muslims were looking towards Jews in Madina to help them fight against the Makkans.

So you are saying it has been abrogated?

I don't have the time to check the demographics, social issues, and abortion rate of every country, but estimated current global monthly average 1,225,000 abortions is quiet high (source).

I admit something has gone wrong with the West now, but I said that the West used to have low abortion rates without flogging. Excluded middle remember?

And muslims countries doesn't have abortion rates, but here is something interesting:

Because Muslims are not as promiscuous as the rest of the human race they have largely avoided AIDS. While there is some danger that most of a generation in some sub-Sahara countries will die of AIDS, the rate of infection in Muslim countries is typically less than one in a thousand adults. ]

Source: http://www.geocities.com/richleebruce/b/islam.html

We have managed to relatively avoid AIDS; perhaps we are doing something right.

Perhaps. Circumcision does seem to protect people from AIDS whether Muslim or not. However are you sure about those AIDS figures?

If you look at http://www.unaids.org/en/default.asp it looks as if North Africa and the Middle East have the same rate of AIDS infection as Western Europe.

1. Quran doesn't state stoning for married adulterers.

I have never been able to find a reference to it but I have been told it was abrogated but it still applies so I guess it is in spirit.

The main reason for all haram things in our Deen is That allah is examining us .

if we are going to obey him or not

yet sceince showed us some benifets of the shari