Messages

But I have seen people slaughter poultry on the altar of a Hindu temple in Andhra Prdesh, India.

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

Salaam Br Ismail. Poultry and grazing animals are eaten as part of lawful food. Do you know of any community or communities now or ever where dogs, cats, rats, lions or anything thing but livestock was sacrificed to gods?? especially at the time around Arabia when prophet muhammad (saw) was preaching?  Thanks Saba

Salaam Absrayray .. there are many types of quranists with many different view. Some don't believe in fasting or the number of prayers in the day, or praying, some say drinking is o.k. or they make up new meanings to arabic words so it fits in with what they want to believe etc etc. As you saw recently with what animals to eat, fundamental concepts are argued upon.

I know br. Joseph has spoken out about some of what the Quranist ppl do (not all but some). might help.... I also know there are some good debates between ppl with quranist ideas and br. Joseph on this forum too. Its good to see who has the best opinion from the Qur'an..I think that is why br. Joseph calls himself 'quran-centric' and not quranist. Saba   


---Questioning the Basis of the Arabic Language - A New Fangled Approach of 'Some' Quranists---
https://www.facebook.com/joseph.a.islam/posts/164704896999979

---Misuse of the Quranic Narratives by 'Some' Quranists to Legitimise 'Modern' Consumption of Alcohol ---
http://www.facebook.com/joseph.a.islam/posts/162118507258618

---The Unfounded Agenda of Some Quranists ---
http://www.facebook.com/joseph.a.islam/posts/437353489649137

Salaam Abbsrayray.. Thanks for informing. I checked it out below. Your link seemed to go to the general site... Thanks Saba 

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=1133

[halal]

Salaam.

Abbsrayray's latest post expresses heartfelt genuine concerns.

Even the laḥman ṭariyyan of well known, edible fish today is prone to mercury poisoning in some places on the globe.

Such are genuine concerns, and must be appreciated.

But this does not take away the decree of their being halaal.

They are not thayyib. God always asks us to eat that which is halaalan thayyiban (2:168, 5:88, 8:69, 16:114).

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

Salaambr. Ismail, ....And what I have been saying to you, without meaning to be rude is that 5-1 in the Qur'an makes grazing livestock halal be explicit mention!.  Why mention a specific category if all animals were lawful anyway???

Salaam Ismail,

I am certainly not talking about Mercury. I am talking about POISON and TOXINS, the creature has that Allah granted them by creating it in them to protect themselves, not just to sting other creatures to protect themselves. These poisons and toxins are in special tissues or organs that cause harm when eaten. A creature is considered venomous if there are specialized mechanisms to physically deliver the toxins through bites, spines and stings. For example, a pufferfish is poisonous when eaten even when cooked but is not venomous in that it does not bite or sting in order to deliver the toxins present in certain organs in its body. It is Gods creation. He made creatures to have communities like us and some for food... That is all I am saying..

Agree 

["Why did Allah mention grazing animals for lawfulness in verse 5-1 if all animals were halal anyway?"]

In 5:1, of course, special mention is made of ordinary livestock. This is because livestock come under the category of good and wholesome food.

The ordinary livestock are the major-most and widely appreciated, preferred, and commonly used item of meat. At least, before the cheap poultry has taken over this preference from at least the lower income group of society, thanks to technological innovations.

Salaam br. Ismail. Can't you see why some will simply not see this as a convincing response? If the Arabs knew to eat grazing livestock, why make specific mention of it at the expense of more exotic type of animals which was not common to eat??? As I said before ....the Qu'ran was speaking to Jews and Christians too and they never ate this kind of stuff so it would have made sense that the Qur'an clarified... but instead it only confirmed the general category of grazing livestock which they knew to eat anyway!!!!! How else would the food of the people of the book be lawful for believer's and believer's food lawful for people of the book such as Jews and Christians? (5:5) How can cats and dogs and lions be lawful for Jews and Christians?

Can't you see that br. Ismail?? Would verse 5-1 not be the perfect place to expect a clear clarification that all animals were made lawful? Why single out livestock?

Now I mean this really nicely ......I am still not getting a convincing response from you on this question. So I will put it out there again ....

"Why did Allah mention grazing animals for lawfulness in verse 5-1 if all animals were halal anyway?"   Saba   

Shalom / Peace ... just imagine >>>> what traditionalists will be thinking ... you quran-only people can't even decide what to eat and you lecture us about our divisions and sects! ... I sometimes think we are our own worst enemies.

Salaam Duster. This is actually a very important point that you r saying. A recent post was made by br. Joseph which was soo true and I think it is very related. I'll share it here as I think there is a lot of good points in it.

https://www.facebook.com/joseph.a.islam/posts/375493445921122

When one is asked to leave the blind beliefs of their forefathers, they must feel confident that what is being presented to them as an alternative, is far better than their existing ways.

Unless and until Quran-focused groups can become a more concerted, scholarly force to reckon with, they will continue to be looked at by suspicion by the masses.

When fundamental concepts, such as salat, its meaning, its numbers, fasting, zakat, whether or not intoxicants are forbidden, meaning of well understood Arabic words etc. are questioned, hotly debated at times with vitriol, harm is only done to the 'approach' as it displays rudimentary fluidity of thought.

I pray for a day when excellence in the form of Quranic studies becomes the mainstay of many institutions and communities around the world.

[Why did Allah mention grazing animals for lawfulness in verse 5-1 if all animals were halal anyway?"]

Salam Saba,

I told u before certain foods were made unlawful for people of the book as punishment!!the Quran says so..

now if the Quran says that those animals are not prohibited explicitly, then Allah has lifts that prohibition!just like the way the Bible says circumcision is mandatory, but the Quran does not say any such thing. so I beleive it is not mandatory. The Quran is a guide over Bible and it sometimes overrides the verses of the Bible!! the Quran says this, " the Quran is revealed to lift some of the the burden from them.

and also only the foods that are halal declared in the Quran can be eaten. people of the book eat some foods that are not halal for us!!! so we can eat those food that are already halal in the Quran.

Salam Nura - You are still not answering my question and this discussion is going around in circles. So let me ask the question again ...

The Qu'ran was speaking to Jews and Christians too and they never ate this kind of stuff so it would have made sense that the Qur'an clarified... but instead it only confirmed the general category of grazing livestock which they knew to eat anyway!!!!! How else would the food of the people of the book be lawful for believer's and believer's food lawful for people of the book such as Jews and Christians? (5:5) How can cats and dogs and lions be lawful for Jews and Christians?

"Why did Allah mention grazing animals for lawfulness in verse 5-1 if all animals were halal anyway?"

Now with rest of you what you stated -

the use of the phrase "mates from your own kind" closes the scope of sleeping with animals!! this is not a deduction!! the phrase is there "your own kind'! this make only humans lawful. Allah is not silent here. He has said 'mates from your own kind'

Why, where does it say that according to your logic? Why are you comparing humans with animals? This is no different from saying we made lawful for you grazing livestock. This also closes the scope of eating any other animal. By your logic, this is also not a deduction.  The phrase is 'grazing livestock'. this makes only grazing livestock lawful.

" what's wrong you approach men with lust?  also closes the door for homosexuality...where is deduction here??

The deduction is that the Qur'an is asking a question why do you approach men with lust?? That means then SEX with them is forbidden. Its called a deduction. Now, if the Quran said - DO NOT HAVE SEX WITH MEN - then that would be an explicit statement and no need for a deduction. Please try to understand what I am saying here ...

Saba 

Oh yes! and one more thing ... by your own logic Nura .....


If Allah has made mates for us and makes lawful for sex other humans with nikaah- then why do you prohibit another category such as bestiality which has nothing to do with humans? By your own method - Where does the Qur'an make haram this separate category which has nothing to do with humans!!!!? You just can't get out of this. By your own reasoning your method is inconsistent!!!!

Anyway - don't want to go off topic .. just shared that to show the inconsistency of your method!!!! Salaam Saba

[GRAZING LIVESTOCK halal - lawful]

Salaam Nura . You keep repeating the same old argument over and over again. It really isn't convincing. Allah makes lawful and unlawful in the Qur'an. In verse 5-1 he makes GRAZING LIVESTOCK halal - lawful. There are two deductions from that:

(1) Other animals are therefore haram
(2) All other animals are halal as well

You are also deducing when you say number (2) which the Quran gives you no right to as well if you think deduction is wrong. I keep asking why mention a category of animals at all if all animals were halal anyway?. Sorry but none of your answers or bro Ismail's make any logical sense. Sorry - but to me they don't and I'm sure others agree!

And you know, demanding proof isn't against the Qu'ran. The Qu'ran was speaking to Jews and Christians too and they never ate this kind of stuff so it would have made sense that the Qur'an clarified... but instead it only confirmed the general category of grazing livestock which they knew to eat anyway!!!!! How else would the food of the people of the book be lawful for believer's and believer's food lawful for people of the book such as Jews and Christians? (5:5) How can cats and dogs and lions be lawful for Jews and Christians?

Also you keep quoting br. joseph, yet he made it clear to ArmanAziz with examples how the Quran prohibits before ArmanAziz decided to get personal with br. Joseph.  You are also deducing, but your deduction ...just does not stand up to examination.

Simple q which you, or Arman Aziz or Ismail could not answer properly....

"Why did Allah mention grazing animals for lawfulness in verse 5-1 if all animals were halal anyway?"

Saba

Use logic brother Ismail before postingl.   You are saying they are specifically mentioned because they are lawful.   Why other categories of animals are not mentioned since they are also lawful (according to you), say dogs, cats, rats, etc.   Actually, if the logic of mentioning is "they are lawful and they are the one generally consumed all over the world", more than the need to mention about permissibility of grazing animals (since they are already considered as lawful by people), it should have mentioned about permissibility of eating dogs, cats, rats,  etc (feel like vomiting!) since they are generally considered as unlawful and not good.

Salaam optimist....thank u for this. I was about to give up!!! I am so glad that on this occasion I am not going crazy!!!!. My point precisely which no one was answering....Why mention something which is already staple diet!!!??? One would think it would be more appropriate to mention other animals which were not common to eat or not mention anything at all.. Why single out grazing stock which everyone knew to eat anyway... Thx!!! 

[lawful (halal)]

Salaam.

Of course, (6:45) comes after a particular context.

But it does not mean that it is limited to that context. In fact, 6:145 only repeats what is explicitly told in the other well known verses of the same category.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Salaam br Ismail. I am actually so surprised that this is your position. Sorry but I couldn't disagree with you most. You, nura and aminaziz simply cannot get away from the fact that verse 6:145 has to be understood as a response to its context. This is not a verse to be read out of context to make all animals lawful. Sorry but it isn't!.  It was a clarification made in within the category of animals that was made haram by the Arabs. You just cannot get away from that. Please read previous verses again.

You talk about verses 2:173, 5:3, and 6:145..... Again, this is out of context..... If read in context:

2:173    - Read in context of previous verse 2-172 - eat of the good things and that includes the category described in verse 5-1 of land animals (with exception of pig) and other good foods such as fruits, fish etc
5:3        - Again read in context previous verse of 5-1 - what is made permissible in grazing livestock!
16:115  -  Again - Read in context of previous verse 16:114 - What is provided as lawful (halal) and good - What is halal of animals is given in verse 5-1 - grazing livestock + other good food such as fish, fruits etc.

Please give me a clear response for my question below if you can:

Why did Allah mention grazing animals for lawfulness in verse 5-1 if all animals were halal anyway?

Thanks Saba

[collectively in context]

This is from the link above:

Dear Adil,

Salamun Alaikum

Quranic themes need to be studied collectively in context and not as isolated verses. Many verses in one part of the Quran explain and elucidate other parts. This is no exception.

Verse 5:1-3 clearly lays down the prohibitions in detail of what is and is not lawful. 6:145 is only confirming in summary form what is in verses 5:1-3 and challenging the superstitions in the preceding verses (6:143-44) and clarifying the matter.  It is clear that the Quraish had superstitious beliefs of what could be eaten of the grazing animals (bahimatul-anaam) and what could not (6:143-44). 

006:143-44
"Eight in pairs-- two of sheep and two of goats. Say: Has He forbidden the two males or the two females or that which the wombs of the two females contain? Inform me with knowledge if you are truthful. And two of camels and two of cows. Say: Has He forbidden the two males or the two females or that which the wombs of the two females contain? Or were you witnesses when Allah enjoined you this? Who, then, is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah that he should lead astray men without knowledge? Surely Allah does not guide the unjust people"


Therefore, verse 6:145 clarifies and challenges these superstitions (hence the exception - 'Say: I do not find in that which has been revealed to me...except') and does away with any prohibitions relating to 'bahimatul-anaam' (grazing animals), and makes them all lawful whilst confirming basic prohibitions as laid out in verses 5:1-3.

There is absolutely no confusion here in my mind if all the verses are studied together and in context.  6:145 should be read carefully with its previous 2 verses to understand the dialogue better.

I hope that helps, God willing.
Joseph.

Salaam all. related to verse 6-145, please see thread below which is very convincing in my view...


http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=455.  -Confusion while interrelations 5:3 and 6:145 (forbidden items of food). Again as I mentioned before 6-145 is being read out of context!

@Abbsrayray - I think the Qur'an deals with fish and creatures of the sea as a completely different category. Small fish are eaten by bigger fish and they are eaten by even bigger fish and so on. They are all fish and catch of the sea and thus halal. Saba 

Salaam all. Please re-read the verses before 6-145 that ArmanAziz keeps quoting out of context.....you will see that 6-145 has to be read in context where it is made clear that Arabs had made unlawful certain things in grazing animals. That is what 6-145 clarified. Verses should not be read out of context.

006.144
And two of camels and two of cows. Say: Has He forbidden the two males or the two females or that which the wombs of the two females contain? Or were you witnesses when Allah enjoined you this? Who, then, is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah that he should lead astray men without knowledge? Surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

006.145
YUSUFALI: Say: "I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine,- for it is an abomination - or, what is impious, (meat) on which a name has been invoked, other than Allah's". But (even so), if a person is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- thy Lord is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

The biggest problem is reading verses out of context!!!!