Attack on Pork Pillar of Islam

[Jafar]

Here, we are informed that Issa make lawful some of what was not lawfull to Bani Israel.
The Messiah, in Arabic, come from root masaha wich mean erase. We know from quran, that Meriem, his mother, was sister of Harun and then Moses was Uncle of Issa.

If we put israelite cultural context to our understanding,

Masih is an 'arabized' word of hebrew "mossiach", in hebrew it means "annointed" (with oil).
While Maryam Sister of Harun (hebrew: Acharon) does not mean literally Maryam and Acharon shared the same parent. The terminology of "Sister of Acharon" means Maryam is a female member of Acharon Priestly Order, a female member of priestly class within Israelite society.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/aaronic-priesthood

Whatever be the teachings given by God to Issa, it seems obvious that his followers, whatever be, haven?t the pork interdiction in their laws. It is obvious that life of Jesus is inspired from the true Issa and that nor Christians, nor Zoroasters, nor Buddhists have such interdiction.


So, if Issa make Pork lawful (wich is not sure because of word ?some? in 3-50), why did we find again this interdiction in Quran, if the Eraser erased for bani Israel the sin of their ancestor ?

Issa / Esso / Iashua / Jesus never make pork lawful or even discussed about it.
And he never 'erased' the sin of anyone..

Pork in Arabia
One of the strangest aspects of this interdiction is that it concerns a kind of food we don?t find in Arabia.
Of course, Allah know that porks and boars exists, but what about mister Israel who probably lived in yemen ?

This is the most interesting part...
Except the Yemen part..

Since people in Arabia in those era have never seen a pork or a boar,  it is logical to suppose that first people who heard the word ?khanzir? didn?t knew to what animal it corresponds. They probably never saw such an animal in their life.

Or the original intended audience of the Quran is not living in Arabia.

5:60 Say: ?Shall I inform you of worse than this as a punishment from God? Those whom God cursed and became angry at them, and He made from them apes (qirada) and pigs(khanazir) and servants of Taghut. Those have a worse place and are more astray from the right path.?.

Unless we suppose that god refers to a ?magical transformation?, and that now, apes and pigs are now spiritually  astray from the right path, it seems that qirada and khanazirs have metaphorical/allegorical meaning for kinds of ?bad-believers?, who serves ?Taghut?.

Again using Israelite cultural context, "turning into apes and pigs" means "becoming greedy", apes and pigs symbolize greed, just like donkey symbolize 'firm/steadfast' within Israeli cultural context.

It is my humble understanding that the term rijs (pollution) applies to the statement following it - i.e. "dedicated for other than Allah with it" - not the preceeding section.

If "rijs" = polluted then it makes perfect sense.
Do not eat polluted food (e.g. rotten, poisonous, polluted with insecticide or radioactive etc..) because it's bad for human health.

Salam / Peace

[Arman]

I do not see how that can be. There is an enumeration, a listing and the next thing is preceed by "aw", there is clearly an "aw" before laHma jinzir with attachment of explantion , li innahu rijs, and then another aw and follows "what is impious", so every item is quite clearly readable as separate from others, and when it speaks of meat of pig it says "because it is rijs", that particular item, bwtween the last "aw" and before the next "aw". I think there in the Qur'an many things far less clearly understandable as this.

On the other hand, that pigs are foul, is something that even inveterate eaters of it acknowledge and even common language of pig eaters acknowledges. Si the rijs parte is far from enigmatic.

Salaam

Salamun Alaikum.

I am not sure if it is one of those warsh vs. hafs difference - but in the version of Qur'an that I am reading I find it to be fa innahu rijs - and I think this difference of "li" vs. "fa" is driving our different readings. The preposition li (for/because) is usually used to give the reason/explanation of the preceeding term / phrase - a reading with "li" in this verse would clearly indicate flesh of swine to be the pollution. On the other hand, the preposition fa (so/then) is usually used to either develop a new concept because of the previous concept, or simply as a conjuntion between to statements where the second statement is a logical successor of the previous one.

In this case I am reading the "fa" as "then" - a conjuction between the previous itemized and unexplained list (the dead, the blood poured forth, and the flesh of swine) and the subsequent explained category (indeed it is pollution or willfull disobedience -to have something dedictated to other than Allah).

However, I do not see this variation in reading to be a "big deal". My way of reading still makes more sense to me so I am sticking with it. If understanding pork as a pollution makes more sense to you - please understand the way you find it logical. I actually believe Allah intentionally created this type of dual meaning in some of the verses in Qur'an so that we try to explore and give our effort to understand the best meaning. But however way we go - the bottom line is - pollution or not - "flesh of swine" is prohibited for the believers and that's all that matters.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

[huruf]

The reason for thinking pig rijs, is obviously that even if you say that it applies to the whole lot of things rpohibited to eat mentionned in the aya, that includes the pig, so it is indeed rijs. Whether there are other things that are also rijs, does not make less rijs of the pig. Carrion is rijs too, so what... The thing is that nobody makes a case of carrion being healthy, or of rat's meat being healthy... The Qur'an warns about pigs, because in facts pigs are staple diet in many places. About rat's meat or cat's meat there is no need to warn, people would only eat that in dire need.

And I recall that God insists several times in the Qur'an that He does not want to make things difficult for us and that all good things for eating are lawful. Therefore, pig is not good for eating.

But the other thing that clinches it is that pig is indeed rijs apart from anything that may be said in the Qur'an or any other religious book. It stinks, it decays far faster than meat of an3am, its toxines stay in the body way much longer than those of an3am... It is not fit for human staple consumption. It is like tobacco. It was nto forbidden, and it is not forbidden not because it is good, but because people just won't stop consuming it. So in countries where pig is consumed, nobody would dare prohibit the meat of pigs because simply it would not be feasible and it would entail a great economic disaster. But at the same time, is prone to be prohibited in medical practice.

Bear in mind too, that today we have turkey ham, many products from other animal that were not produced before in countries where pig was consumed for the reason that pig is very economically "efficient" meat. But the fact is that if you an choose between turkey ham and pig's ham, do you guess what your doctor would recomend?

Doctors may have been saying for ages, privately, to their patients, smoke less, quite smoking or whatever, but it was not taken seriously till their was a public and official stand on making widely known the dangers of smoking. The same, doctors if there is an alternative available will recomend the alternative to pig's ham, for instance. I know all the older people around me, who grew up growing pigs, and storing their products for the whole year, now they do not grow them and very rarely may consume pig, because if the can choose, choose something else. But pig was a handy thing to have lots of products to consume along the year. Of course, apart from the meat there are many pig products which are consumed because people like the taste not because they are healthy like bacon or sausagges of different kinds.

Once again, it is as smoking. You smoke a cigarette you do not fall dead on your tracks, but it is not healthy and it may kill you, although many people are not killed.

Rijs all right. Which is the reason, that not out of intolerance to their habits or anything like that, but I would never offer to any guest of mine anything form the pig because if I do not want harmful things for me nor my family, I am not going to offer them to others because it is cheaper and they do not mind... Because if it is not bad, I would never attempt to proselityze them in any way, other than honest, consented conversation.

Salaam

[huruf]

Salamun Alaikum.

I am not sure if it is one of those warsh vs. hafs difference - but in the version of Qur'an that I am reading I find it to be fa innahu rijs - and I think this difference of "li" vs. "fa" is driving our different readings. The preposition li (for/because) is usually used to give the reason/explanation of the preceeding term / phrase - a reading with "li" in this verse would clearly indicate flesh of swine to be the pollution. On the other hand, the preposition fa (so/then) is usually used to either develop a new concept because of the previous concept, or simply as a conjuntion between to statements where the second statement is a logical successor of the previous one.

In this case I am reading the "fa" as "then" - a conjuction between the previous itemized and unexplained list (the dead, the blood poured forth, and the flesh of swine) and the subsequent explained category (indeed it is pollution or willfull disobedience -to have something dedictated to other than Allah).

However, I do not see this variation in reading to be a "big deal". My way of reading still makes more sense to me so I am sticking with it. If understanding pork as a pollution makes more sense to you - please understand the way you find it logical. I actually believe Allah intentionally created this type of dual meaning in some of the verses in Qur'an so that we try to explore and give our effort to understand the best meaning. But however way we go - the bottom line is - pollution or not - "flesh of swine" is prohibited for the believers and that's all that matters.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

I checked that aya, and for the sake of clarity and rightness, I did make a mistake. Sorry, Armanaziz, I cited from memory and it does say "fa innahu" and not "liannahu". My apologies.

As to the question itself, as I already pointed out, it is clear whether with "li" or with "fa" that the pig is foul for consumption by itself, not because it is sacrificed this or that way or under one name or another. Just like mayitan (carrion). There is nothing esoteric as to the why of the prohibition, just as there is nothign esoteric in the prohibition of carrion or spurting blood.

As mentionned God says in another ayas that He does not want to make life difficult and that all good things are lawful:

2.172. Oh you who belive, eat of the good things that We have provided for you and be grateful to Allah it if is him you worship.

2.173. He has only forbidden you dead meat and blood and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name have been invoked besides that of Allah, but if one is forced...


It is clear from the preceeding ayas that pig is not of the good things. It is on the same list as carrion and blood. It is a specific thing by itself. It is not dependent on some esoteric cause, but on itself. It is not by any chance that God dislikes the animal, but that to eat it it is not good. Even if the name of allah only was invoked on it, still it would no be of the good things.

By the way lately there has been on Spanish Tv many institutional advertisements saying how great is the meat of pigs, how it is not red, but white meat and, well, the best meat in the world... There must be some crisis in the pig meat market for such an advertising campaign to take place and it is probably that other better meats have lowered their price  and even with the crisis become more accessible and people are more conscious of their consumption. It would be a joke if now the pig growers should save their industry thanks to muslim consumption. I hope it does not come to that. We would be the last idiots on earth, which we are well in our way to becoming...

Salaam

[Arman]

Salamun alaikum.

Thanks Huruf for the clarification. You recognize the ?fa? but did not explain why you are reading it as ?for/because? meaning it is explaining the preceding term (the flesh of swine), rather than developing on the previous theme like ?so / then?. Can you give some other examples from Qur?an where you think ?fa? is used to explain the preceding term (as ?for/because?)? Check, for example, in the below cases where ?so / then? seems to be more appropriate translation for ?fa? rather than ?for/because?:

2:16   أُولَٰئِكَ الَّذِينَ اشْتَرَوُا الضَّلَالَةَ بِالْهُدَىٰ فَمَا رَبِحَت تِّجَارَتُهُمْ وَمَا كَانُوا مُهْتَدِينَ

For/Because: They are the ones ? who exchanged  deviation for guidance ? for/because their trade has not profited, and they do not happen to be the guided ones . (Doesn't sound right)

So/Then: They are the ones ? who exchanged  deviation for guidance ? so their trade has not profited, and they do not happen to be the guided ones . (Sounds right).


2:17   مَثَلُهُمْ كَمَثَلِ الَّذِي اسْتَوْقَدَ نَارًا فَلَمَّا أَضَاءَتْ مَا حَوْلَهُ ذَهَبَ اللَّهُ بِنُورِهِمْ وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي ظُلُمَاتٍ لَّا يُبْصِرُونَ

For/Because: Their example (is) like (the) example of: (someone) who kindled a fire, for/because as it illuminated what was around him, Allah took their light away and left them in darkness - they don?t see. (Doesn't sound right)

So/Then: Their example (is) like (the) example of: (someone) who kindled a fire, then as it illuminated what was around him, Allah took their light away and left them in darkness - they don?t see. (Sounds right).

So, for me:

6:145   قُل لَّا أَجِدُ فِي مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ مُحَرَّمًا عَلَىٰ طَاعِمٍ يَطْعَمُهُ إِلَّا أَن يَكُونَ مَيْتَةً أَوْ دَمًا مَّسْفُوحًا أَوْ لَحْمَ خِنزِيرٍ فَإِنَّهُ رِجْسٌ أَوْ فِسْقًا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ ۚ فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَلَا عَادٍ فَإِنَّ رَبَّكَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

For/Because: Say, ?I do not find in what has been inspired to me anything prohibited to an eater who eats ? except ? that it happens to be dead, or poured-out blood or flesh of swine; for/because indeed it is pollution; or willful disobedience - initiated for other than Allah with it.? Then whoever is compelled - neither coveting nor transgressing; then indeed your Master is Relenting, Kind. (Doesn't seem to be right)

So/Then: Say, ?I do not find in what has been inspired to me anything prohibited to an eater who eats ? except ? that it happens to be dead, or poured-out blood or flesh of swine; then indeed it is pollution or willful disobedience - initiated for other than Allah with it.? Then whoever is compelled - neither coveting nor transgressing; then indeed your Master is Relenting, Kind. (Seems to be right).

Please note that I am not carrying on this discussion because I have a problem to accept "flesh of swine" as a pollution - but rather so that we can learn the correct interpretation/usage of the prefix "fa" - which will enable us to follow the logic of Qur'an accurately - throughout the book.

As for "flesh of swine" my take is as follows:
1. "Pollution" or not - it is PROHIBITED in Qur'an for believers - so we (believers) must avoid it, but I do not think we can or should force this prohibition on non-believers.
2. There are strong health arguments why "flesh of swine" may be harmful, but those alone do not justify an explicit prohibition, because:
   a) There are many other harmful foods, but those have been left to our judgment rather than making them explicitly prohibited food. The commandment "Eat from the good things that I have provided you" already suffices as an instruction to avoid harmful foods.
   b) In spite of there being strong arguments on pork being harmful / risky, billions of people on this planet eat pork - and I am not sure there is enough data/evidence to support that the pork eaters are indeed ill-health or have lower life-expectancy (due to higher propensity of disease) compared to their non-pork-eating counterparts.

Some quick comments on the verses 2:172-173 that you have quoted: Verse 2:172 already instructs us to eat the good food. then verse 2:173 says Allah ONLY prohibited a, b and c. If we infer that Allah is listing the things which are not "good" then we have to argue that a, b, c is the comprehensive list of bad things - which is clearly not the case. So, for me a more appropriate interpretation is - we are instructed to eat good things based on our judgement (2:172) in addition Allah ONLY prohibited a, b, c, superceding our judgement of good and bad (2:173) - everything else is subject to our judgement.

So, for me the 3 named prohibitions in Qur'an - i) the carrion, ii) blood and iii) flesh of swine - are prohibitions that we MUST adhere to because of our faith in Qur'an notwithstanding any elaborate reason or scientific justification for or against them. And that it good enough for me - because I do believe that Qur'an is the Word of Allah and it does have the authority to prohibit certain foods for reasons beyond our knowledge - to test our faith in the book. (Note: I do not give similar status/authority to any other book, for example the Hadis books / Fatwa of so called scholars).

I refrain from eating flesh of swine for the sole reason that I believe Qur'an to be the word of Allah - not because of my dislike of it or any scientific/health reason - and I have absolutely no shame / hesitance to declare it to any group.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

[huruf]

Salamun alaikum.

Thanks Huruf for the clarification. You recognize the ?fa? but did not explain why you are reading it as ?for/because? meaning it is explaining the preceding term (the flesh of swine), rather than developing on the previous theme like ?so / then?. Can you give some other examples from Qur?an where you think ?fa? is used to explain the preceding term (as ?for/because?)? Check, for example, in the below cases where ?so / then? seems to be more appropriate translation for ?fa? rather than ?for/because?:

2:16   أُولَٰئِكَ الَّذِينَ اشْتَرَوُا الضَّلَالَةَ بِالْهُدَىٰ فَمَا رَبِحَت تِّجَارَتُهُمْ وَمَا كَانُوا مُهْتَدِينَ

For/Because: They are the ones ? who exchanged  deviation for guidance ? for/because their trade has not profited, and they do not happen to be the guided ones . (Doesn't sound right)

So/Then: They are the ones ? who exchanged  deviation for guidance ? so their trade has not profited, and they do not happen to be the guided ones . (Sounds right).


2:17   مَثَلُهُمْ كَمَثَلِ الَّذِي اسْتَوْقَدَ نَارًا فَلَمَّا أَضَاءَتْ مَا حَوْلَهُ ذَهَبَ اللَّهُ بِنُورِهِمْ وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي ظُلُمَاتٍ لَّا يُبْصِرُونَ

For/Because: Their example (is) like (the) example of: (someone) who kindled a fire, for/because as it illuminated what was around him, Allah took their light away and left them in darkness - they don?t see. (Doesn't sound right)

So/Then: Their example (is) like (the) example of: (someone) who kindled a fire, then as it illuminated what was around him, Allah took their light away and left them in darkness - they don?t see. (Sounds right).

So, for me:

6:145   قُل لَّا أَجِدُ فِي مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ مُحَرَّمًا عَلَىٰ طَاعِمٍ يَطْعَمُهُ إِلَّا أَن يَكُونَ مَيْتَةً أَوْ دَمًا مَّسْفُوحًا أَوْ لَحْمَ خِنزِيرٍ فَإِنَّهُ رِجْسٌ أَوْ فِسْقًا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ ۚ فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَلَا عَادٍ فَإِنَّ رَبَّكَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

For/Because: Say, ?I do not find in what has been inspired to me anything prohibited to an eater who eats ? except ? that it happens to be dead, or poured-out blood or flesh of swine; for/because indeed it is pollution; or willful disobedience - initiated for other than Allah with it.? Then whoever is compelled - neither coveting nor transgressing; then indeed your Master is Relenting, Kind. (Doesn't seem to be right)

So/Then: Say, ?I do not find in what has been inspired to me anything prohibited to an eater who eats ? except ? that it happens to be dead, or poured-out blood or flesh of swine; then indeed it is pollution or willful disobedience - initiated for other than Allah with it.? Then whoever is compelled - neither coveting nor transgressing; then indeed your Master is Relenting, Kind. (Seems to be right).

Please note that I am not carrying on this discussion because I have a problem to accept "flesh of swine" as a pollution - but rather so that we can learn the correct interpretation/usage of the prefix "fa" - which will enable us to follow the logic of Qur'an accurately - throughout the book.

As for "flesh of swine" my take is as follows:
1. "Pollution" or not - it is PROHIBITED in Qur'an for believers - so we (believers) must avoid it, but I do not think we can or should force this prohibition on non-believers.
2. There are strong health arguments why "flesh of swine" may be harmful, but those alone do not justify an explicit prohibition, because:
   a) There are many other harmful foods, but those have been left to our judgment rather than making them explicitly prohibited food. The commandment "Eat from the good things that I have provided you" already suffices as an instruction to avoid harmful foods.
   b) In spite of there being strong arguments on pork being harmful / risky, billions of people on this planet eat pork - and I am not sure there is enough data/evidence to support that the pork eaters are indeed ill-health or have lower life-expectancy (due to higher propensity of disease) compared to their non-pork-eating counterparts.

Some quick comments on the verses 2:172-173 that you have quoted: Verse 2:172 already instructs us to eat the good food. then verse 2:173 says Allah ONLY prohibited a, b and c. If we infer that Allah is listing the things which are not "good" then we have to argue that a, b, c is the comprehensive list of bad things - which is clearly not the case. So, for me a more appropriate interpretation is - we are instructed to eat good things based on our judgement (2:172) in addition Allah ONLY prohibited a, b, c, superceding our judgement of good and bad (2:173) - everything else is subject to our judgement.

So, for me the 3 named prohibitions in Qur'an - i) the carrion, ii) blood and iii) flesh of swine - are prohibitions that we MUST adhere to because of our faith in Qur'an notwithstanding any elaborate reason or scientific justification for or against them. And that it good enough for me - because I do believe that Qur'an is the Word of Allah and it does have the authority to prohibit certain foods for reasons beyond our knowledge - to test our faith in the book. (Note: I do not give similar status/authority to any other book, for example the Hadis books / Fatwa of so called scholars).

I refrain from eating flesh of swine for the sole reason that I believe Qur'an to be the word of Allah - not because of my dislike of it or any scientific/health reason - and I have absolutely no shame / hesitance to declare it to any group.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

Fa innahu rijs.

what is the hu referring to? Must be the antecedent and not what follows. And your interpretation that it follows from that that it is rijs OR willful disobedience OR upon which other beside Allah has been invoked cannot be.

For me it is clear that the fa is still an explanation of what precedes because of the hu and the the fact that the rijs is in nominative, and then it continues listing the things that should not be eaten in accusative as the preceeding things mentionned as not to be eaten which are also in accusative, so the fa opens and explanation which may refer just to the pig or to all the previous things mentionned in accusative, an explanation which ends in rijs in nominative, and thereapon continues with another AW with what follows in accusative, the same as the mayitan, damam adn lahma khinzir.

You cannot have rijs and fisqan being attributed to the same because rijs is nominative fiscan accusative they have very different functions in the sentence. the accusative in fisqan after the "aw" (or) makes it rejoin the enumeration with the previous accusatives.

That is the way that is being translated, as far as I can judge, by all translators I have noticed, and although translators not  always make the best choices, I see no reason in this case to propose anything different. I think that is the correct understanding.

The other two ayas you quote are completely different, in them with the fa new sentences are started. Not so in the 6.125, which is an incise sentence, that is an explanation of something already said in the middle of a longer sentence.

I think the reason I remembered "li" instead of fa is because in fact in my gramatical mind, they amounted to explain the same in that phrase.

As to other harmful foods, I have already spoken about that. But since it seems that no notice is taken, I will repeat: none of those anonymous harmful things for consumption, apart from alcohol, are staple diets almost everywherelike pig is or like alcohol is. Neither pig nor alcohol are prohibited out any esoteric reason, but for very material and health reason. Physical health or social health. 

If what you refer is to things like cholesterol and so on, that is something else. People are liable to commit excesses, but those are excesses, like eating to much cheese which in fact may cause to have bad cholesterol, but those are excesses, not something due to the food itself. If you eat too much red meat you might also get some ailment. As to that populations who eat pork are as healthy as others, I very very much doubt that any serious and comprehensive study has been done on that. And I also doubt that it is going to be made. It would be too upsetting and give rise to too many problems, but what offers no doubt is that as populations have better buying power, they upgrade their meat consumption from pork to veal or something else. Pork is the lowest scale. But in spite of lack of comprehensive investigations, what is known "privately", such as in medical practice, is very eloquent. 

If you go back to my messages in this I have said many things, I won't repeat myself, finally I am no trying to proselitize, but I do want that there should not be any doubt, because as I did say it is for me not a question of tolerance, I am not in the business of minding other peoples' business, but if a serve food to anybody I will not serve them bad food. As simple as that. If you want to give me lessons of tolerance on that count, I surely do not need them. I do not serve people alcohol either. If on their own the eat shit that is their own sweet business not mine, but it would be gross that I serve something I know is harmful and which I would not eat nor give to eat to anybody I care for. And of course if I talk about that with anybody I say what I think, I do not say ?oh yes, eat a lot of pork, it is so good, that more than tolerance would be idiocy.

Salaam

[Arman]

Salamun Alaikum.

Thanks for your explanation. You probably have some good points there. I will study it in more details.

Best regards,
Arman

[Hizbullah]

If we put israelite cultural context to our understanding,

Masih is an 'arabized' word of hebrew "mossiach", in hebrew it means "annointed" (with oil).
While Maryam Sister of Harun (hebrew: Acharon) does not mean literally Maryam and Acharon shared the same parent. The terminology of "Sister of Acharon" means Maryam is a female member of Acharon Priestly Order, a female member of priestly class within Israelite society.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/aaronic-priesthood

Salam Jafar,

Maryam was the sister of Harun and as such both Dawood and Esa were cousins. The Quran is very explicit about it.

I, We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], as We revealed to Noah and the prophets after him. And we revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, the Descendants, Esa, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to Dawood We gave the a Section [of the Book of Musa].

Highlighted Red refers to Esa and his descendants and Green refers to Harun and his descendants.

Issa / Esso / Iashua / Jesus never make pork lawful or even discussed about it.
And he never 'erased' the sin of anyone..

If "rijs" = polluted then it makes perfect sense.
Do not eat polluted food (e.g. rotten, poisonous, polluted with insecticide or radioactive etc..) because it's bad for human health.

100% agreed with you.

Wild boar and pigs are one of the those animals [including big cats, cats,dogs, hyena, etc] named as scavenger. Khinzir means scavengers because it makes perfect sense that scavengers eat carrions [dead and decaying flesh and excrements]. These animals contains parasites and high levels of toxins in their bodies. By avoiding these food, we also avoid ingesting their toxic waste and "UNWELCOME GUESTS" [PARASITES].

I have seen documentary films showing lions killed hyena but they never eat their flesh.

Salam

[Leeemada]

Is the prohibition of pork in Islam merely a dietary guideline, or does it symbolize a deeper cultural or spiritual boundary that defines the identity of Muslim communities? How does this stance affect interfaith relations and the perception of Islam in a globalized world?",
        "refusal