HALAL ZABIHA? what does the Quran say about what we eat

[woke]

https://thequranspeaksforitself.wordpress.com/2020/01/12/food-for-thought-what-quran-says-about-eating/

an interesting new post... food for thought for sure

[Iyyaka]

https://thequranspeaksforitself.wordpress.com/2020/01/12/food-for-thought-what-quran-says-about-eating/

an interesting new post... food for thought for sure

Peace,

Interesting and good efforts BUT we are dealing SOMETIMES with the same problem as with traditional exegetes: possible distortion of the literal meaning of the text or abusive interpretation of verses drawn out of their textual CONTEXT, near or distant.

Take the example of 6:118 so:

   YES he is right in saying that it is not a question of obligatorily pronouncing the name of Allah each time we eat (even if in other places god ask us to be grateful for its benefits ..)
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   NO he is wrong when he interprets this verse as not relating to physically eating something.

Simply:
1) Look at the immediate textual context (translation from Sahih International ):
[6:118]
So eat of that [meat] upon which the name of Allah has been mentioned, if you are believers in His verses.
[6:119]
And why should you not eat/takulū of that upon which the name of Allah has been mentioned while He has explained in detail to you what He has forbidden/ḥarrama you, excepting that to which you are compelled/uḍ'ṭurir'tum.

2) And Compare (intertextuality) with other verses of the Quran where the word "eat" and "forbidden" and "compelled" (verb in the form of eight) appear together to find were "He has explained in detail" :

[2:172-173]:
O you who have believed, eat from the good things which We have provided for you and be grateful to Allah if it is [indeed] Him that you worship.
He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

[6:145] - same surah
Say, "I do not find within that which was revealed to me [anything] forbidden to one who would eat it unless it be a dead animal or blood spilled out or the flesh of swine - for indeed, it is impure - or it be [that slaughtered in] disobedience, dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], then indeed, your Lord is Forgiving and Merciful. "

[16:114-115]
Then eat of what Allah has provided for you [which is] lawful and good. And be grateful for the favor of Allah, if it is [indeed] Him that you worship.
He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit] - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

and we can add the verse 5:3 (more detailed) - the word eat is replaced by the word hunger

[woke]

yes I understand your NO's.. but if you read the article it does say the other words must be studied using their root words. So these words such as blood, swine etc.. do not mean what they are translated as...

[Iyyaka]

yes I understand your NO's.. but if you read the article it does say the other words must be studied using their root words. So these words such as blood, swine etc.. do not mean what they are translated as...

yes the efforts of understanding are meritorious, but about what you say above in bold, i suggest you to look at these 2 clear signs :

1) in (5:3) the word "hunger" is use by allah - not doubt it is speaking about eating physically something. The root word خ م ص is without unambiguous (Lane Lexicon:  The belly was, or became, empty; i. e., hungry)


2) context of (6:145) : the theme is about food (and specially meat) and rules wihch are not coming from allah (for meccan polytheists as well as jews) :

6:142: From the livestock are those for burden, and also for clothing. Eat from what God has provided you and do not follow the footsteps of the devil; he is to you a clear enemy.
6:143 Eight in pairs: from the lambs two, and from the goats two. Say: "Is it the two males that He forbade or the two females, or what the wombs of the two females bore? Inform me if you are truthful!"
6:144 And from the camels two, and from the cattle two. Say: "Is it the two males that He forbade or the two females, or what the wombs of the two females bore? Or were you witnesses when God ordered you with this?" Who is more wicked than he who invents lies about God to misguide the people without knowledge. God does not guide the wicked people.
     --------------------------------------------------
     6:145 Say: "I do not find in what is inspired to me to be unlawful for any eater to
     eat except that it be already dead, or running blood, or  the meat of pig - for it is tainted - or what is a wickedness,
     dedicated to other than God." But whoever is forced to, without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is
     Forgiving, Merciful.
     --------------------------------------------------
6:146 And for those who are Jewish We have made unlawful all that have claws; and from the cattle and the sheep We made unlawful their fat except what is attached to the back, or entrails, or mixed with bone. That is a punishment for their rebellion, and We are truthful.
6:147 If they deny you, then say: "Your Lord has vast Mercy, but His Might will not be turned away from the criminal people."
6:148 Those who are polytheists will say: "If God wished, we would not have set up partners, nor would have our fathers, nor would we have made anything unlawful." Those before them lied in the same way, until they tasted Our might. Say: "Do you have any knowledge to bring out to us? [Kitab] You only follow conjecture, you only guess."
(Translation by The Monotheist Group)

The textual context is clear, otherwise it is not "The Quran speaks for Itself" BUT "The Quran speaks for myself".

[good logic]

I So it is fine to use the following if you are not supposed to use secondary sources?, quote:

Lanes Lexicon description of the root أَكَلَ (alif-lam-kaf) the root for kulu – كُلُو

Or has this been authorized by the author of Qoran?
If reason and logic is to accept Qoran explains itself without any secondary source, then all secondary sources should not be used!!!.
GOD bless.
Peace.

[woke]

The word meat is never mentioned in the verse. It is not talking about meat. And hunger can be any hunger like hungry for love. I hope he continues to explain these words.

[woke]

My friend a dictionary to explain the meaning of a word can be used.

[good logic]

Why? 
Qoran explains itself, does it not?
Remember a root word can have many meanings! Or do we chose randomly a meaning?
GOD bless you.
Peace

[woke]

a root word has only one meaning, but the meaning can be applied in different ways, evolve.

[good logic]

You mean we play gymnastics with the one meaning?
The context is always key.
I think if one wants to use reason and logic with few words and verses, we have to ask them to finish the whole book then see the sense it all makes. That is my point.
When I read your link ,I have more questions than answers when the context is not fitting for me.. But that is my view.
Just thought I ask you.
Thank you.
GOD bless you.
Peace.