Author [EN] [PL] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Is Pig Fat Forbidden or Just Swine Flesh?

Offline Reader Questions

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
    • View Profile
Is Pig Fat Forbidden or Just Swine Flesh?
« on: November 13, 2011, 12:39:39 AM »
Salam Joseph,

The 'consensus ' on this is  that ALL /Any part of the Pig is forbidden.
 
Brother Edip Yuksel and Late Rashad Khalifa, (and one other website) I think give  a very Potent argument, that whilst the flesh of swine is Haram  , The FAT is NOT?
 
They Both Use the Quran as the basis of their argument, In Verse 6.146 there is clear  mention of  how GOD had prohibited the FAT of animals For The Jews? and that GOD can distinguish between the Fat of animals and the Meat.
 
Although I personally could never see my self Eating Any part of a Pig (Up bringing??)  I really am interested in your views from the Quran on this, that the Fat is permissible?
 
why would GOD only mention the Word Flesh of Swine? Why not Say Pig Only?

Offline Joseph Islam

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
    • The Quran and its Message
Re: Is Pig Fat Forbidden or Just Swine Flesh?
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2011, 12:41:39 AM »
Peace,

The only reason in my mind why the fat of animals has been singled out for Jews is because they had very stringent rules of what they could and could not eat. See verse 6:146 of the Quran and the Old Testament. That is why the Quran uses the distinguishing terms.

Please note that if the same logic is applied, the reverse argument is just as sound. For example, it can be argued that by the using the term 'khanzeer', the Quran has forbidden the whole animal, as if the Quran wanted to allow other parts such as 'fats' (shuhumahuma), their entrails (hawaya) etc, the Quran could have mentioned it, especially when it was forbidden before and mentioned in the Quran. But as the Quran didn't mention it, hence, the whole animal is intended in the prohibition.

I hope you can see that the reverse argument is also just as cogent if the same logic is applied. It arguably seems more plausible.

The reason I feel the 'lahmu' (flesh) of 'khinzir' (swine) has been used is that given the context, the verse is talking about 'eating' and mentioning the 'flesh' of the prohibited animal is in keeping with the flow of the verse and Arabic.  If you one consults verse 56:21, where the flesh (lahmi) of fowls will be given to those in paradise as a similitude of that of on Earth, would this exclude the insides? Or is the 'lahmu' a representation of the whole animal?

'and the flesh (lahmi) of fowls of they desire' (56:21)

If here the whole fowl is intended (including the fat), then why would 'lahmu' with regards to khanzir (swine) not be considered as a representation of the whole animal?

I hope this helps, God willing.

Joseph.
'During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act' 
George Orwell