Dogs and Pigs are unclean means what??

[Nimos]

According to the law ex. Leviticus 11:2-3 says

However this excludes a pig, according to Leviticus 11:7 and Deuteronomy 14:8 because a pig "does not chew the cud".

"does not chew the cud", is essential because we know that a pig would eat anything including human flesh which is not only disgusting to think about, but is also disgusting to each such animal.

I underlined the word "disgusting" because not only it is disgusting that a pig would east human flesh, but also God calls such animals disgusting ("abominable") according to Deuteronomy 14:3


Since God declares a pig disgusting that essentially makes one "unclean" if it eats port because such act makes one disgusting as well and unclean to God.

One should then perform purification ritual and offer sacrifice to God according to the law to make him self pure again.

But in that case most predators that could eat a human should be unclean as well, right?

 

[paradox]

But in that case most predators that could eat a human should be unclean as well, right?

That's right, since according to the law these "do not chew the cud"

 

[pearl]

Jesus does warn not to give 'what is holy' to dogs. Many take that to mean the Gentiles.

 

[firedragon]

in Islam was said do not eat pork, it meant, do not eat the Religious Leaders flash and blood, or do not obtain your spiritual food from them, but get it directly from the Prophet.

I'm the same verse it says not to eat Carrion or al maythatha. What does that mean?

 

[firedragon]

In Abrahamic religions such as Islam, and even perhaps Biblical Faiths, it is said Dogs are unclean. In Islam it is also said pigs are unclean.

Could you give the verses that says the below?

1. Pigs are unclean
2. Dogs are unclean

Thanks.

 

[stevecanuck]

Could you give the verses that says the below?

1. Pigs are unclean
2. Dogs are unclean

Thanks.

No only does the Qur'an not say dogs are unclean, but it says people can eat game killed by hunting dogs. That makes no sense if dogs are considered unclean as it means they would contaminate anything they killed.

I would like to see a Muslim cab driver challenged in court to justify saying he can't take a dog in his cab because of his religion.

 

[firedragon]

No only does the Qur'an not say dogs are unclean, but it says people can eat game killed by hunting dogs. That makes no sense if dogs are considered unclean as it means they would contaminate anything they killed.

Yep Agreed.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Pigs in some parts of the world will eat literally anything, including human faeces.

Including humans. At least they do in Hannibal and Red Dead Redemption 2 lol.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Could you give the verses that says the below?

1. Pigs are unclean
2. Dogs are unclean

Thanks.

In OP I am not saying it is necessarily in the Quran. But there are at least many Hadithes where the Prophet said Dogs are unclean. It is well-known among Muslims.
A Hadith attributed to Muhammad, He said angels do not come to a home, where in there is a dog.

I am not of opinion this Hadith is a fabrication. But, it is an allusion to those Clergy men (ulama), who opposed Messengers of God, when a new Revelation came.


It is also recorded that Jesus said

Woe to the Pharisees, for they are like a dog lying in the manger of the cattle; for he neither eats nor does he let the cattle eat.

 

[firedragon]

In OP I am not saying it is necessarily in the Quran. But there are at least many Hadithes where the Prophet said Dogs are unclean. It is well-known among Muslims.

1. Which Hadith?
2. Whats the chain?
3. What is the thadhlees level?
4. Why does it contradict the Qur'an where you are allowed to eat meat hunted by a dog.
5. Why does it contradict ahadith in the Golden chains where dogs were allowed inside the masjids?

Dont give vague responses. Respond specifically. And dont pretend you believe what is "well known among muslims" because you are not a muslim.

Prove that you have some substance in your OP.

 

[firedragon]

"The narration that clarifies that the angels do not enter a house where there is a dog or a picture is an authentic narration which is reported by Al-Bukhari and Muslim and it is mentioned in Fatwa 88213. Since the narration is authentic, then a Muslim person should submit himself and be pleased with it even if he does not know the wisdom thereof. If he knows the wisdom, he should be more certain about it."

Why the angels do not enter a house where there is a dog or a picture - Islamweb - Fatwas

Regards Tony

Oh see, this is not the method even the most dogmatic muslim mulla or maula believes in things so dont pretend you believe more than them. Also you should note that this hadith does not say unclean. Quick googling and cutting and pasting from a website like islamweb for post hoc ergo propter hoc is not a valid response.

Do you even know who's Fatawa you are cutting and pasting? On what basis did this person give Fatawa? Did he say "Dogs are unclean"?

1. Appeal to authority
2. Ad populum
3. even this story written 3 to 4 centuries later narrated ultimately by Frabri does not say "unclean".

I asked several questions.

1. Which Hadith?
2. Whats the chain?
3. What is the thadhlees level?
4. Why does it contradict the Qur'an where you are allowed to eat meat hunted by a dog.
5. Why does it contradict ahadith in the Golden chains where dogs were allowed inside the masjids?

 

[firedragon]

But, it is an allusion

Every thing you want to create is turned into an allusion. The most facade claim about pigs meat being some "allusion" is just created over the counter.

Questions you have not answered are many because the OP is pure fabrication.

No one in this thread will ever get comprehensive answers to valid questions ever.

1. Where did Muhammed or any other tom dick or harry say the verse is an allusion to some mind boggling allusion? Nowhere. Someone asked, and you didnt answer because its just fabrication.

2. The same verse speaks of Carrion and not to eat them. Whats the allusion in that? And where is it recorded?

3. The same verse says not to eat running blood. Whats the allusion in that? And where is it recorded?

Everything in the OP is just fabrication IT. Strange fabrications.

 

[KWED]

In Abrahamic religions such as Islam, and even perhaps Biblical Faiths, it is said Dogs are unclean. In Islam it is also said pigs are unclean.

What I am debating is, when the Prophets, such as Muhammad have said dogs or pigs are unclean, they actually did not mean the animals. They were talking figuratively and by this, they meant the Religious Leaders of their time, and future. The term Dog or Pig, in this case was applicable to the Religion Leaders who were opposing the new Revelation and the new Prophet, as well as the Religious Leaders who were to appear in future ages, but due to a wisdom they did not say it explicitly. Insread they said Dogs and Pigs are unclean, and the actual intention was understood by their close companions. They understood the Prophet was speaking of the Religious Leaders, and not the animal. But most people misunderstood that.
In Islam it is also said, do not eat pork. This is also symbolic.
This is similar to when Jesus said eat my flash and blood. He did not mean literally eat His body, but He was speaking of His teachings which was like food for spirit. Likewise when in Islam was said do not eat pork, it meant, do not eat the Religious Leaders flash and blood, or do not obtain your spiritual food from them, but get it directly from the Prophet.

So, is there anything in religious scripture that should be taken literally? And if so, how do you know and how do you differentiate?

 

[KWED]

in Islam was said do not eat pork, it meant, do not eat the Religious Leaders flash and blood, or do not obtain your spiritual food from them, but get it directly from the Prophet.

This is obvious nonsense because of the context of the prohibition. It presents a list of prohibited foods. Or are all the other items on those lists also metaphors for other things? If so, what?

 

[KWED]

To many ancient cultures prone to magical thinking and hyper-active agency detection, if someone gets sick after doing something, then it's because the gods were angry at them for doing it. If enough people get sick doing the same thing, obviously the gods have spoken and have declared that thing a taboo.

That sort of superstitious thinking wasn't just common back then, but people to this day still think along those lines. It isn't hard to see how these sorts of bans arose.

The "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

 

[paradox]

So, is there anything in religious scripture that should be taken literally? And if so, how do you know and how do you differentiate?

The laws of Moses for example are to be taken literally, ex. stoning adulteress means exactly that. because there are cases where people got stoned for real rather than figuratively.

Not to eat port is same way meant literally, because one who did was considered unclean, and was required to perform rituals for real rather than figuratively.

 

[KWED]

My understanding from the Bible is that when the God said He doesn't want offering from "that dog", he is referring to the previous verses when he mentioned the homosexual. The biblical God also refused the offering of the prostitute in the same context.

On the other hand, in the book of Revelation, Jesus telling the prophecies to John, told him that no adulterer, dog, etc. will enter to the new Jerusalem. Here again, the word "dog" is related to sexual behavior. In this case, by having Father and Son being in agreement with the same thought, in the book of Revelation it says that no homosexual will enter to the new Jerusalem.

Wow, you really are pushing the Christian homophobe agenda, even where not relevant.
It is interesting to note, a propos of nothing, that some of the most outspoken religious homophobes turned out to be closet gays themselves.

 

[KWED]

The laws of Moses for example are to be taken literally, ex. stoning adulteress means exactly that. because there are cases where people got stoned for real rather than figuratively.

Not to eat port is same way meant literally, because one who did was considered unclean, and was required to perform rituals for real rather than figuratively.

I was wondering more in the context of the OP's claims, rather than reality.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I asked several questions.

I had already deleted the post.

Regards Tony

 

[Secret Chief]

One should then perform purification ritual and offer sacrifice to God according to the law to make him self pure again.

Rituals and sacrifices such as?