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.

[woke]

Peace Brother
Questions are good and important, that's how we all learn!
Salaams

[good logic]

Thanks/
GOD bless you.
Peace.

[hawk99]

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 woke,

Quote from the article:

"This root can only have one meaning throughout, either consume or a physical eating."

consume covers both spiritual as well as physical consumption.

"eat" in English is more palatable when it comes to food.   

From the article:  These are metaphors

•He ate his life. Meaning he became extremely aged.
•He ate the flesh of my sheep and drank the milk of them. Meaning he ate, fed upon, devoured, or consumed my wealth or property.
•The fire devoured or consumed the firewood.
•He consumed his life.
•Towns devour other towns.

                                                           



                                                     

[amin]

So many restrictions comes from other sources like Hadiths, but i think Quran advocates to eat and consume whatever we feel good, and in moderation with fasting also asks questions about religiously followed rules and restrictions possibly taken or imposed from distant cultures that doesnt have value or goodness logic in their culture.

[woke]

Peace woke,

Quote from the article:

"This root can only have one meaning throughout, either consume or a physical eating."

consume covers both spiritual as well as physical consumption.

"eat" in English is more palatable when it comes to food.   

From the article:  These are metaphors

•He ate his life. Meaning he became extremely aged.
•He ate the flesh of my sheep and drank the milk of them. Meaning he ate, fed upon, devoured, or consumed my wealth or property.
•The fire devoured or consumed the firewood.
•He consumed his life.
•Towns devour other towns.

                                                           



                                   Peace! yes true it does cover both but in another post he explained that you can only have one meaning thru the entire book. I believe he has a reference to it on this post.  I have been following him for a few months now.

[jkhan]

Peace Everyone...

For me, i read the article with neutral mind to get something new... but i found out that article is so nonsensical .... only those who are blind will take it as true...

Conventional translators mostly have translated the word hamza kāf lām correctly according to what the context of the verses....

According to the article there is no single word hamza kāf lām is to mean Consume food (liquid+solid)... that's so incorrect....

May I know from the initiator, what are the meanings of Wa'Kulu Wa' Ish'rab verses in entire quran?

[jkhan]

Peace Everyone...

For me, i read the article with neutral mind to get something new... but i found out that article is so nonsensical .... only those who are blind will take it as true...

Conventional translators mostly have translated the word hamza kāf lām correctly according to what the context of the verses....

According to the article there is no single word hamza kāf lām is to mean Consume food (liquid+solid)... that's so incorrect....

May I know from the initiator, what are the meanings of Wa'Kulu Wa' Ish'rab verses in entire quran?

Verse 6:118 has everyone reciting bismillah before they eat and before they slaughter (halal/zabiha slaughter). Yet it has nothing to do with meat, eat, or slaughter.
Sahih International translation: So eat of that [meat] upon which the name of Allah has been mentioned...
First of all, the word meat is inserted by the interpreter, it is not even mentioned in the verse.

Above is excerpts of article brought by Woke ( in blue )..

22:36 "And the camels and cattle We have appointed for you as among the symbols of Allah ; for you therein is good. So mention the NAME OF ALLAH upon them when lined up; and when they are [lifeless] on their sides, then EAT from them and FEED the needy and the beggar. Thus have We subjected them to you that you may be grateful."
As well verse 22:28 ''That they may witness benefits for themselves and mention the name of Allah on known days Over what He has provided for them of animals. So eat of them and feed the miserable and poor."
The above verses clearly indicates that mentioning name of God while slaughtering regardless of the occasion ... But 6:118 in general God speaks of consuming specially food (liquid+solid) by mentioning or remembering the name of God...

Below is the translation of the author....

6:118 So consume that which the recognition/ distinction of Allah has been recalled / remembered /recognized (zikr).

God has not mentioned meat in above verse, that's true... Hadith oriented translators inserting a word meat probably knowing or not knowing... But the above verse is translated far away from truth...God has clearly asked us to  consume whatever we consume by uttering His name or remembering Him..
As Iyyaka explained, Why not translate the next verse 6:119 to give a clear picture?
6:119 "And why should you not eat of that upon which the name of Allah has been mentioned while He has explained in detail to you what He has forbidden you, excepting that to which you are compelled. And indeed do many lead [others] astray through their [own] inclinations without knowledge. Indeed, your Lord - He is most knowing of the transgressors."

6:121 "And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned, for indeed, it is grave disobedience. And indeed do the devils inspire their allies [among men] to dispute with you. And if you were to obey them, indeed, you would be associators [of others with Him]."

It is compulsory to remember / mention the name of God before Consume food.. that's what God teaches us... If you buy a chicken from a shop, you have no idea the condition of the chicken... But you have all the right to thank God for providing the chicken and then mention His name or remember Him... If you are the one to be slaughtering better mention the name of God or remember Him... God has not forbidden except what He has instructed us clearly... If the slaughter disbeliever and slaughtered without remembering God doesn't mean we can't eat what he slaughtered, we can but we have to remember God... If the slaughter sacrificed to any of his gods then if you knew it then we should avoid eating it..

Comment of Woke ''I have been FOLLOWING him for a few months now." .... That's where things go wrong for you... follow quran with the guidance of God... and not anyone...

If you keep debating within yourself in this forum on this very topic, in sha allah you will find you are wrong and the one you keep following for couple of months.. dear Woke...

[woke]

Verse 6:118 has everyone reciting bismillah before they eat and before they slaughter (halal/zabiha slaughter). Yet it has nothing to do with meat, eat, or slaughter.
Sahih International translation: So eat of that [meat] upon which the name of Allah has been mentioned...
First of all, the word meat is inserted by the interpreter, it is not even mentioned in the verse.

Above is excerpts of article brought by Woke ( in blue )..

22:36 "And the camels and cattle We have appointed for you as among the symbols of Allah ; for you therein is good. So mention the NAME OF ALLAH upon them when lined up; and when they are [lifeless] on their sides, then EAT from them and FEED the needy and the beggar. Thus have We subjected them to you that you may be grateful."
As well verse 22:28 ''That they may witness benefits for themselves and mention the name of Allah on known days Over what He has provided for them of animals. So eat of them and feed the miserable and poor."
The above verses clearly indicates that mentioning name of God while slaughtering regardless of the occasion ... But 6:118 in general God speaks of consuming specially food (liquid+solid) by mentioning or remembering the name of God...

Below is the translation of the author....

6:118 So consume that which the recognition/ distinction of Allah has been recalled / remembered /recognized (zikr).

God has not mentioned meat in above verse, that's true... Hadith oriented translators inserting a word meat probably knowing or not knowing... But the above verse is translated far away from truth...God has clearly asked us to  consume whatever we consume by uttering His name or remembering Him..
As Iyyaka explained, Why not translate the next verse 6:119 to give a clear picture?
6:119 "And why should you not eat of that upon which the name of Allah has been mentioned while He has explained in detail to you what He has forbidden you, excepting that to which you are compelled. And indeed do many lead [others] astray through their [own] inclinations without knowledge. Indeed, your Lord - He is most knowing of the transgressors."

6:121 "And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned, for indeed, it is grave disobedience. And indeed do the devils inspire their allies [among men] to dispute with you. And if you were to obey them, indeed, you would be associators [of others with Him]."

It is compulsory to remember / mention the name of God before Consume food.. that's what God teaches us... If you buy a chicken from a shop, you have no idea the condition of the chicken... But you have all the right to thank God for providing the chicken and then mention His name or remember Him... If you are the one to be slaughtering better mention the name of God or remember Him... God has not forbidden except what He has instructed us clearly... If the slaughter disbeliever and slaughtered without remembering God doesn't mean we can't eat what he slaughtered, we can but we have to remember God... If the slaughter sacrificed to any of his gods then if you knew it then we should avoid eating it..

Comment of Woke ''I have been FOLLOWING him for a few months now." .... That's where things go wrong for you... follow quran with the guidance of God... and not anyone...

If you keep debating within yourself in this forum on this very topic, in sha allah you will find you are wrong and the one you keep following for couple of months.. dear Woke...

I am following Quran. But to understand certain concepts I have been following or reading his posts. They make sense to me. If they don't to you then that is fine. We do not all have to agree on this. Take what your rationale mind accepts.

[woke]

Peace Everyone...

For me, i read the article with neutral mind to get something new... but i found out that article is so nonsensical .... only those who are blind will take it as true...

Conventional translators mostly have translated the word hamza kāf lām correctly according to what the context of the verses....

According to the article there is no single word hamza kāf lām is to mean Consume food (liquid+solid)... that's so incorrect....

May I know from the initiator, what are the meanings of Wa'Kulu Wa' Ish'rab verses in entire quran?

Perhaps you can ask him on the post. Post a comment asking about ashrubu.

[Mazhar]

Grand Qur'ān discarded both the theories of translation, i.e. "word by word (also termed as "literal translation" - translating meaning of each lexical item in sequence)" and "Sense-for sense translation - translating the meaning of each whole sentence before moving on to the next", prevalent in the days of its serial publication for translating it to any language of Non-Arab lands. It not only indicated method of its translation but also mentioned keys to evaluate the accuracy of translated target language text. Considering the genealogy and operating system of Arabic language, a little that I have come to know about it, I have named this Theory as Triplet Theory of Translation, exoterically matching it with triplet method of translation of protein encoding genes conveyed by the Messenger (mRNA) in Human Genome.

Francis Bacon is stated to have once remarked that "some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested". He was perhaps classifying and evaluating books by importance and greatness. In real life, the process of digestion involves mechanically breaking down the ingestible into small pieces and then by chemical process converting it into liquid form. The key word for human's dietary protocol in Arabic is: حَلَٟلٚ from Root: ح ل ل. Ibn Faris stated that its primary signification is to open, unlock, unwrap a thing, it denotes to disassemble, unfasten, and untie the knots. The ingestible upon liquefaction is absorbed into the body to sustain vitality and life.

If the ingestible is a book, which, in every language, is but words and phrases tied into sentences, sentences tied into paragraphs and paragraphs into text - discourse, we will need liquefying it to digest the book. Francis Bacon has incidentally given us one of the best Translation Theory and methodology that can meet at reader's level the ultimate objective of authoring a non-fiction book - communicating knowledge, the sustainer of vitality and life. The computer and Internet technology and introduction of concept of Corpus Semantics has made it easy for us to chew and digest any book of any language.

I am not aware if Francis Bacon did name some books he thought need to be chewed and digested. The dietary protocol prescribed in the book titled Qur'ān restricts the ingestibles to: حَلَـٰلٙا طَيِّبٙا beneficial, nutritious, and delightful for the individual rather than which is: خبیث or نکدًا junk, picayune

http://haqeeqat.pk/Quran.Corpus-1.htm

Root: ء ك ل

Words from this Root in the Grand Qur'ān:

a) Total occurrences: 108

b) No of constructions: 46

Nouns: 12 Recurrence: 16  Verbs: 34  Recurrence:: 92 [Form-I]

Semantic field: Eating - Dietary protocol

Basic perception infolded is that of eating, chewing and swallowing the food into the belly and refers to eatables. The eatable could be a rightful possession, or acquired through illicit manipulations. It therefore also denotes usurpation.
Other Roots related to the field of eating and dietary protocol

Root: ب ط ن
Root: ح ر م
Root: ح ل ل
Root: ر ب و
Root: ر ز ق
Root:  س م ن
Root: س ح ت
Root:  ش ر ب
Root: ط ع م
Root: ط ى ب
Root: غ ص ص
Root:  غ ن م
Root: ل ح م
Root: ل ق م
Root: م و ل
http://haqeeqat.pk/roots/(42).htm

[jkhan]

Perhaps you can ask him on the post. Post a comment asking about ashrubu.

Peace...
I meant by Initiator You and not anyone else who is not in this forum.. You brought this topic and you follow.. So to follow something you must be having knowledge of it.. So would you please explain what I highlighted in brown...

[jkhan]

I am following Quran. But to understand certain concepts I have been following or reading his posts. They make sense to me. If they don't to you then that is fine. We do not all have to agree on this. Take what your rationale mind accepts.

Let me explain you below verse which you consider differently.

2:35 "And We said, 'Adam, dwell thou, and thy wife, in the Garden, and eat thereof easefully where you desire; but draw not nigh this tree, lest you be evildoers."

The above verse for you is not satisfied according to article.. I am not here to change you,  but you said what he wrote make sense to you... I know 'Kulu' has different ways of meaning same as in English or any other language..

God spoke in one of His ways to Adam to pass above message... It was strict advice only one object while with freedom totally for rest...whatever kulu and sajara may mean for you, these are two basic restrictions.... Here in 2:35 Eat from tree not mentioned  but not to near but in 20:116-121 Eat is mentioned for same story... "Ate from the Tree"
Let's turn to story... God told Adam the restriction... But SATAN heard it... God strongly advised Adam SATAN is enemy... But Adam forgot... SATAN knew God restricted with reason the tree... So Satans only aim is to entice Adam to disobey only the same point.. So SATAN enticed with the same tree which God restricted to near. SATAN knew it is just another tree nothing special but only a restriction...  Adam believed Satan's fancy words totally forgetting God's clear instructions... Did Adam become after eating from the tree immortal and etc as SATAN promised? No...  Isn't the promise of Satan deception? Isn't SATAN want Adam and all human to act against what God likes and instructs so that we err..

Janna is to indulge in and one of those is consuming food...  Adam had all the freedom to indulge in except the very simple restriction...  Only ONE.. but disobeyed... Had Allah not restricted,  Story would have been different?  God PROMISED to iblees RESPITE... Respite with small door opened.. That's the restriction imposed on Adam... That's the point SATAN touches.. Even in this world same... SATAN touches our desire and weaknesses to lead us astray.. I mean satan wait in ambush to make us go against God's RESTICTIONS...  GOD'S restrictions are so simple but we deny like Adam..

My question is..
Would you pls explain the SAME story from quran what makes SENSE to you? Let's see whether it is food for thought.. Make sure Kulu and sajara included in your explanation... I am always accepting what makes sense to me... Let me see why it made sense to you while not for me from the same quran... Guidance is ONE..