“خنزیر” (KHANZIR) IN THE LIGHT OF QURAN. QURANIST’S CLAIM THAT NOWHERE, HAS ALLAH MADE THE PIG HARAM AND KHANZIR IS NOT PIG.

UNIVERSAL TITLES OF GOD, SAYING “GOD” IN HEART BY NON MUSLIM COOK DOES NOT MAKE THE FOOD HARAM, REALITY OF “ذبیحہ” (ZABIHA) OR ISLAMIC WAY OF SLAUGHTERING.

QUESTION:

Salaam respected sir, thank you for the very detailed explanations, its much appreciated.

Regarding the word khinzir,i just want to know your opinion on this statement:

"While khinzeer, in the Arabic language, does mean pig, it also means "that which I see as bad/the ill-seeming". The question then, is,... which definition did Allah choose to use in His Quran? As ayats 5:5 and 6:146 prove, nowhere, has Allah made the pig haram, hence, khinzeer, cannot mean pig in Al-Quran, but the ill-seeming/that which I see as bad"

This is taken from the freeminds forum,one of the forumners there chose to translate the meaning of "lahmul khinziri" as rotten flesh and not pig flesh.Since the in the same ayat already mentioned dead and dead equals to rotting flesh,so i dont think it meant rotten flesh...Whats your opinion on this?

Regarding the mention of food cooked by other non muslim,muslim common thought is like this,for example,since hindu worshippers worship shiva,so when they say god,in their hearts they meant shiva.So thats why they said its haram and that is their understanding of it.

What about the meat(cow for example) that were obtained in a christian community and cooked by a christian chef for example.Muslim concern is on how the cow is slaughtered and for that they cant eat the meat.Due to i myself havent fully read the quran especially on the ways of obtaining the meat from animal,so i also cant give opinions on this matter.They used to believed that the animal need to be slaughtered in an islamic method in order for it to be permitted to us...This proves somehow troublesome if we are travelling in non islamic state where "islamic" food,meat espescially are hard to find to be supplied by muslims...let me know your thought on this matter.

Thank you respected sir for your time and kind contributions,its much appreciated. Salaam.

Ahmad Razali

ANSWER:

Dear Brother Ahmad Razali,

Salaam,

It is the fact that all revelations of God are consistent and their statements match with each other so that if somehow we do not understand anything from any particular revelation we can find it in the other revelation of God. Also this is the way of God to protect His message. This is the reason why we have been repeatedly urged in the Quran to accept all revealed books of Allah, read them and take cross references from them. Therefore, the names of the Gospel, the Torah and the Psalms have been particularly mentioned in the Quran for our study.

However, when the interpretation of the Quran was distorted by the so called early scholars of Islam the very first thing which they invented and publicized was the false claim of revocation, annulment, abrogation (تنسیخ), distortion (تحریف) and amendment (ترمیم) in the earlier revelations of God to condemn them in our eyes.

To support their false claim they heavily publicized the fabricated translations of those verses of the Quran in which they had invented that the earlier revelations had been declared abrogated and annulled in the Quran because of illegitimated amendments were made in them by the people of earlier revealed books. 

This is because these so called scholars of Islam wanted to block the way that may lead people to trace the correct meaning of the statements of the Quran by cross reference of earlier revelations, which could have helped them reach the truth which they have concealed with their false interpretation of the Quran. On top of that they have invented fake literature and falsely attributed it to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to misguide people further.

However, the correct interpretation of the Quran has made it clear that the revelations of God before the Quran are the true words of God, which cannot be rejected on the basis of false assumptions of our scholars. As they are quite useful reference books to drill the truth that has been purposely concealed in the false interpretation of the Quran. These books are from God without any doubt and their true statements are still saved in their original text but at the same time we can’t deny that their interpretation has been changed by their scholars and clergy in the same way as our scholars have changed the meaning of the Quran due to their false beliefs.

However, if you ever have a chance to look at their original text in which they were revealed you will find them matching with the true statements of the Quran saved in its revealed Arabic text. Most of the standard translations of these books are still not as bad as the translations of the Quran.

Some examples of translations of these books are as follows for your study.

Against polytheism, paganism and Trinity:

“Hear O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord, and the Lord your God is to be loved with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.”(Deuteronomy 6:4-5)

“Which law is the first of all?” Jesus said in answer, “The first is, Give ear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; and you are to have love for the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.”(Mark 12:28-30)

The Quran says the similar thing:

“قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ” (112:1)

“Told, God is one”

 “وَإِلَـهُكُمْ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ لاَّ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ الرَّحْمَنُ الرَّحِيمُ” (2:163)

And your deity is a deity, One is not a deity but He is the Universal Father (Protector) and the Universal Mother (Kind) (word to word correct translation - Quran 2:163)

Jesus is not God but a man and a messenger of God sent by Him:

‘I (Jesus) by myself can do nothing – as I hear I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my will, but the will of thy who has sent me’.(John 5:30)

‘This is eternal life, so that you may know there is one true God, and Jesus Christ, who Thou has sent.’(John 17:3)

One of the persons approaches Jesus, and says ‘Good Master, what good things shall I do, that I shall attain eternal life.’ And Jesus said unto him, ‘Why do you call me good? For there is none good, except One, that is God – And if you want to enter life, keep the commandments(Mathew 19:16-17)

The Quran says the same thing about Jesus (pbuh) that he was a typical human created by God from the same fermented substance, then God called him and he was there (came into existance).

إِنَّ مَثَلَ عِيسَى عِندَ اللّهِ كَمَثَلِ آدَمَ خَلَقَهُ مِن تُرَابٍ ثُمَّ قَالَ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ (3:59)

Likewise, pig meat has been already prohibited in earlier revelations of God.

And the pig is unclean to you, because though it has a division in the horn of its foot, its food does not come back; their flesh may not be used for food or their dead bodies touched by you.(Deuteronomy 14:8)

Interestingly, God has also given a scientific reasoning why pig meat is not good (طیب) for us. Whatever, has been explained in the above verse 14:8 of Deuteronomy it is known as “Ruminant” in modern science in which pigs don’t chew “cud” and use bacteria to digest their food unlike other animals who digest their food by chewing their cud, which is reloaded into their mouth from their first stomach. Therefore, the bacteria used to digest their (pigs) food are injurious to human health. So, according to the Quran their meat is prohibited (حرام) and does not fall in the category of listing good or right (طیب) food. 

In the King James Bible Swine is not allowed to eat for the same reason:

And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you. (Deuteronomy 14:7; Acts 10:9-16) King James Bible.

The following statement of Isaiah is also against eating of swine meat:

Who sit among graves and spend the night in secret places; Who eat swine's flesh, And the broth of unclean meat is in their pots. (Isaiah 65:4)

The same thing has been explained in the following verse of Leviticus:

And the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you ۔(Leviticus 11:7)

In the Gospel, Matthew 7: 6, Luke 8:33 and 15:15 the same thing has been mentioned about pork.

The Quran has confirmed all above statements of earlier revelations by declaring “خنزیر” (pork/swine/pig) meat Haram “حرام” (prohibited).

2:173 - “إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةَ وَالْدَّمَ وَلَحْمَ الْخِنْزِيرِ” But prohibited on you is the dead and blood and flesh of the swine/pig/pork.

16:115 - “إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةَ وَالْدَّمَ وَلَحْمَ الْخِنْزِيرِ” But prohibited on you is the dead and blood and flesh of the swine/pig/pork.

6:145 - “مُحَرَّمًا عَلَى طَاعِمٍ يَطْعَمُهُ إِلاَّ أَن يَكُونَ مَيْتَةً أَوْ دَمًا مَّسْفُوحًا أَوْ لَحْمَ خِنْـزِير فَإِنَّهُ رِجْسٌ أَوْ فِسْقًاٍ” Unauthorized/Taboo/forbidden on feeder who feed only dead, poured forth blood and pork meat that is filth or tempting violation.

Muharram “مُحَرَّمًا” means “Unauthorized”, “Taboo”, and “Forbidden” The terminology “محرم” (mahram) is used for those who are unauthorized and forbidden for each other to inject. “طَاعِمٍ” means “injector” or “feeder”. This is the reason why certain relations are counted as “محرم” (mahram) who are forbidden and not authorized to make sexual or injecting (نکح) relationship among each other. The complete list of unauthorized injectors (لا تنکِحوا) has been given in the Quran in the same meaning of “Haram”.

 “حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةُ وَالْدَّمُ وَلَحْمُ الْخِنْزِيرِ” (5:3)

Prohibited/forbidden on you the dead and blood and flesh of the swine/pig/pork.

You have referred the following paragraph from “Freeminds” forum of the forward block of the Quranists and asked for my opinion:

"While khinzeer, in the Arabic language, does mean pig, it also means "that which I see as bad/the ill-seeming". The question then, is,... which definition did Allah choose to use in His Quran? As ayats 5:5 and 6:146 prove, nowhere, has Allah made the pig haram, hence, khinzeer, cannot mean pig in Al-Quran, but the ill-seeming/that which I see as bad"

I don’t use my opinion in the translation of clear words of the Quran and want to keep my interpretation as clear as mentioned in the Quran without mixing my personal views in Allah’s statements.

However, to reach the correct meaning of this Quranic word “خنزیر” we must follow the golden rule of understanding the Quran as told by Allah Himself that the Quran has been revealed in plain Arabic language understandable to common people in their own tongue which they use in general conversation and in daily life. 

No matter whether it was classical Arabic or modern one but the word “خنزیر” has always been used to mean “pig” in Arab culture and people always understand “خنزیر” to mean “pig”. Therefore, “pig” is primary meaning of “خنزیر” throughout the Arab world. However, when they swear on someone they sometimes say “خنزیر” in abused way as they commonly swear by calling abuses like “یا ابن الکلب” or “ابن الکلب” (Son of rabies), “ابن الحمار” (Son of ass) or “حرامی” (bastard/thief). These are all their common abused or swearing but only in figure of speech, which does not mean that the other person is really “bastard” or physically a ”dog” , “ass” or a “pig”. They understand very well what “کلب” (dog) is, what “حمار” (ass) is and what “خنزیر” (pig) is. This is the reason why soon they become quite normal with those whom they swore and abused, and have “قہوہ” (gahwa-Arabian black tea) together, eat together and even offer prayer together in one row or behind each other.

Furthermore, we have authentic source of earlier revelations of God to verify the correct meaning of Arabic word “خنزیر” as mentioned in the above verses of the Bible in which pig has been prohibited in the same way as it has been made Haram “حرام” in the Quran. If you go to the Biblegateway or Biblehub and click Arabic translation of these verses you will find the word “خنزیر” to mean pig in Arabic translation of the above mentioned verses of the Bible.

So, from general Arabic language, in old and new Arab culture and in the earlier revelations of God we have found that the word “خنزیر” has been used in the Quran to mean “pig”. Also, there was no need of taking “خنزیر” as a metaphor of something else in such important orders of the Quran which were coming in the prohibition category.

This is a general rule that if you want to stop someone from doing something you always use clear words so that people can understand what exactly is forbidden. Using metaphors in the prohibition orders or in prohibition notices means you don’t want people to understand what is actually prohibited. This is the reason why orders are given in simple, plain and straightforward language for their implementation without any confusion.

However, the Quranists are well notorious in taking Allah’s clear words as “metaphors” this is the reason why their forward block dared to change Allah’s words and struggled in finding their alternatives because they falsely believe that the Quran has been revealed in metaphorical language instead of plain standard Arabic and they take the meaning of the Quran from their unproductive word engineering. This is the reason why they take “خنزیر” to mean bad or ill-seeming. However, they have forgotten the statement of the verse 6:115 in which Allah has clearly mentioned that “there is no alternative of His words”

“وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ صِدْقًا وَعَدْلاً لاَّ مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِهِ” (6:115) “And words of your Lord are complete, truthful and justly, there is no alternative for His words” (word to word correct translation 6:115).

The word “مُبَدِّلَ” of the above verse is wrongly translated to mean “change” but the Quran uses the word “تبدیلاً” (tabdeela) to mean “change” which is also used in general Arabic language in the same meaning. In fact ‘Change’ and ‘Alternative’ are two different things but the Quranists are well notorious for changing the words of the Quran from here to there to invent the meaning of their choice by using their evil skill of word engineering. There is no doubt as Allah has also said in the same Quran that ‘the way of Allah is never changed nor is dissolved’ but picking and dragging the word ‘no change’ from one verse to another to modify the words of other verses such as replacing ‘no alternative’ with ‘no change’ is out of question. Had they translated and understood the word “مُبَدِّلَ” correctly they wouldn’t have thought about inventing the alternatives of Allah’s clear words taking them as the metaphors of something else. In the same verse 6:115 Allah has also said “وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ” And He is the knowledgeable intellectual, which means He knows what He says and He does not need anyone else to move His words from here to there to invent false understanding of His words.

The same yardstick has been mentioned in the verse 18:27 of the Quran “وَاتْلُ مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيْكَ مِن كِتَابِ رَبِّكَ لاَ مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِهِ” And deliver what is being conveyed to you from Book of your Lord, there is no alternative for His words (correct translation18:27).

We have also seen in the Quran that ‘Allah does not run out of words’ “مَّا نَفِدَتْ كَلِمَاتُ اللَّهِ” (31:27) and Allah does not forget to mention what He wants to say. “وَمَا كَانَ رَبُّكَ نَسِيًّا” (19:64) and neither your Lord is forgetter.

Therefore, Allah could have clearly said “bad or ill seemed” in His own words instead of using the so called metaphor of “خنزیر” to mean “bad or ill seemed” or rotten meat as asserted by the forward block of the Quranists.

We have forgotten that Allah has also urged “وَمَا أَنتَ عَلَيْهِم بِجَبَّارٍ فَذَكِّرْ بِالْقُرْآنِ” (45:50) “And not enforce them on your own in fact remind them through the Quran” means impose only what is mentioned in the words of the Quran.

Hence, there is no doubt that the word “خنزیر” has been used in the Quran to mean “pig”.

In the same paragraph of Freeminds Quranist’s forum it is also asserted, “As ayats 5:5 and 6:146 prove, nowhere, has Allah made the pig haram”.

I have already explained in my previous article on “QURANIC WORD HARAM” that Allah has listed all Haram (prohibited) items together in the verses 5:1, 5:2 and 5:3, i.e. the first three verses of Surah Al Maida contain the list of all Haram things at one place. The next verse 5:4 opens with the question mark and exclamation from people that if everything has been declared Haram (prohibited) then what is Halal (lawful) left for them? “يَسْأَلُونَكَ مَاذَا أُحِلَّ لَهُمْ” (5:4). This is the verse (5:4) which is a divider between the list of all Haram (prohibited) items and Halal (lawful) items. Thus, the list of Halal (lawful) items starts from the verse 5:4 with the question “what is Halal (lawful) then?”

The list of all Halal items starts from the verse 5:4 is extended to the next verse 5:5 in which they were told “الْيَوْمَ أُحِلَّ لَكُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتُ” Now, good/right things are lawful for you, and all Halal (lawful) things are further listed in this verse 5:5.

So, Allah have made two separate lists:

1-  Haram (unlawful) items (5:1, 5:2 & 5:3)

2-  Halal (lawful) items (5:4 & 5:5)

If “خنزیر” is already listed in Haram (unlawful) items in the verse 5:3 how can it be listed again in the verse 5:5, which contains only lawful (حلال) items? Likewise, pork meat (لَحْمَ خِنْـزِير) is listed in the verse 6:145 with other unauthorized/forbidden/unlawful (مُحَرَّمًا) items like dead, dripping blood and dedicated to non-God and pork meat (لَحْمَ خِنْـزِير) has been clearly made unauthorized to consume because it is un-clean, filthy and tempting violation but the next verse 6:146 has nothing to do with pork meat (لَحْمَ خِنْـزِير) because in the verse 6:146 gaining power to rule over everyone and cruelty with women treating them like deaden cows and like a rolling stone have been made forbidden (حرام). However, the false translation of 6:146 given by ignorant Quranist and traditional scholars is totally nonsense in which our evil scholars pressed lies on Allah that He had made forbidden every animal with claws or finger nails on Jews and He forbade them fat of the ox and the sheep, except the fat adhered to their backs or their entrails, or which is mixed up with their bones. I really feel like slapping those evil faces who have twisted the clear words of Allah in the translation of this verse 6:146, which I will present in my next article with word to word complete analysis and correct translation.

However, If the meat of pig has been declared prohibited in the verse 5:3 within the list of all prohibited (حرام) items listed in the first three verses 5:1, 5:2 and 5:3 it was not needed to be mentioned again in the verse 5:5 which contains the list of only lawful (حلال) items. This is because Allah did not mix prohibited/unlawful (حرام) and lawful (حلال) items to eliminate the confusion. Thus, in the list of prohibited (حرام) eating items, given in the verse 6:145, the pig meat has been declared prohibited (حرام) to feed it as a food and the next verse 6:146 deals with other prohibited (حرام) acts. Therefore, the argument of the Quranists of Freeminds Forum is complete nonsense that “As ayats 5:5 and 6:146 prove, nowhere, has Allah made the pig haram”

Allah has made the pig meat HARAM in the same context and its prohibition is mentioned in the list of all Haram items which went right over the so called Quranists’ head.

In fact the Quranists are more harmful towards the Quran because they know nothing about the Quran and they are highly into preaching the Quran thinking themselves that they are the only people who know Quran the best but they only base on their fake logics instead of understanding the clear words of the Quran.

You’re very right that taking “خنزیر” to mean “rotten flesh and not pig flesh” is the same as “dead”, which is already mentioned in the same list of Haram eating items listed together in the verses 2:173, 5:3, 6:145 and 16:115 of the Quran in which ‘dead’, blood, ‘pig meat, and dedicated to non-God have been made unlawful (حرام). However, it could be possible that the hungry Quranists’ forum has been looking for any excuse to jump on pig meat.

Regarding your question of mentioning on food the name of God by non-Muslim cooks for example Hindus etc. I have already made it clear in my previous article “Quranic word Haram” that considering their cooked food Halal (حلال) will be subjected to the conditions of Halal (حلال) ingredients and universal definition of God, Who is not a deity but a living entity (اللہْ لا اِلٰہَ الا ھوالحیّْ القیّوْم). If someone’s definition of God matches with this Quranic definition of Allah he/she is not dedicating or nominating their eatery to “non-God” or anyone other than Allah no matter what name he/she uses for God. For example the verse of the Quran 6:102 says “ذَلِكُمُ اللّهُ رَبُّكُمْ لاَ إِلَـهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ خَالِقُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ” That your Allah is your Lord not a deity but He is Creator of everything (word to word correct translation 6:102).

The verse 3:6 says “لاَ إِلَـهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ” Not a deity but He is the Powerful Wise (word to word correct translation 3:6).

The verses 3:2 and 2:255 say “اللّهُ لاَ إِلَـهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ الْحَيُّ الْقَيُّومُ” Allah is not a deity but He is the Living Entity (word to word correct translation of 3:2 & 2:255).

The verse 2:163 says “لاَّ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ الرَّحْمَنُ الرَّحِيمُ” Not a deity but He is the universal Father and Mother (correct translation 2:163)

In the earlier revelations God described Himself as a “Shepherd” and by definition a shepherd is alone mother and father of his livestock, who feeds them, who cares about them, who provides them shelter, who guides them ignoring their mistakes and who protects them.

So, the Quranic words “الرَّحْمَنُ الرَّحِيمُ” have been used in the same account in which the word “الرَّحْمَنُ” is the protector of everything and possesses fatherly attributes of Allah whereas “الرَّحِيمُ” is motherly attributes of Allah, which possesses forgiveness, kindness, ultimate love and affection with Her creature. Both fatherly and motherly attributes “الرَّحْمَنُ الرَّحِيمُ” of God came in the Quran individually and together as well in a single unity without conjunction “و” (and) between “الرَّحْمَنُ الرَّحِيمُ. Wherever, Quran talks about protection and refuge fatherly attribute of Allah “الرَّحْمَنُ” has been used because we understand that a father can give us better protection. Where forgiveness was concerned Allah’s motherly attribute “الرَّحِيمُ” has been used because we know that our mother always forgives us.

So, Allah is just one of the Titles of God in Arabic which does not stop anyone using the other titles of God used before revealing the Quran. Also God never mentioned His name in any revelation including the Quran because names are given to idols and deities to worship them individually by their individual identity. Likewise, names are given to people to determine their individuality out of uncountable similar faces but God is alone in His entity, Who is automatically identified and recognised by His universal attributes called His title names, which could be varied from person to person, nation to nation, religion to religion, country to country and language to language.

The verses 3:13 & 3:14 of Exodus (chapter of Torah) says, when Prophet Moses (pbuh) insisted God to tell him His name so that he can tell Pharaoh and his court Who conveyed them this message through me God did not mention His name and simply said:

Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" (New International Version, Exodus 3:13)

“God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you'" (New International Version Exodus 3:14)

“And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you” (King James version of Bible, Exodus 3:14)

When Moses asked god what he should call him god answered “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE” (Exodus 13:14, Witchtower translation).

The next verse Exodus 3:15 explains when Moses again asked God what is his name then God said once more to Moses: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation” (Exodus 3:15)

Quran kept the same fashion of Allah in the verse 28:30

“فَلَمَّا أَتَاهَا نُودِيَ مِن شَاطِئِ الْوَادِي الْأَيْمَنِ فِي الْبُقْعَةِ الْمُبَارَكَةِ مِنَ الشَّجَرَةِ أَن يَا مُوسَى إِنِّي أَنَا اللَّهُ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ”

And when he reached it, he was called from the right side of the valley in the blessed field, from the tree: O Moses! Lo! I, even I, am Allah, the Lord of the Worlds (28:30 translation Pickthal).

In other words it means that God does not need to introduce Himself by any given name because everybody knows Him and He is reflected from everything throughout the known and unknown worlds. He is the Creator of everything (خَالِقُ كُلِّ شَيْء), He is the Father and Mother of everything (الرَّحْمَنُ الرَّحِيم), He is the Powerful Wise (الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ), He is the Ever Living Unity (الْحَيُّ الْقَيُّومُ). These are just a few attributes of God out of uncountable titles of His known or unknown attributes. Therefore, if any name or title of God defines Him within the framework of universally accepted definition of God as a Creator of everything, Owner and Master of the worlds, Owner and Master of accountability and Judgment, Owner and Master of life and death, the Supreme Being and Sustainer of everything then this is the same God, Who we accept by His single out Arabic title ALLAH.

Regarding your question about saying the name Shiva on food by Hindu worshiper of Shiva who believe it god. I don’t know much about Hinduism but if the title Shiva refers the same attributes of Supreme Being which we have discussed above to define God or its Arabic title Allah in the light of the Quran then there is no harm in saying the name Shiva on food and accepting him God. This is because no one has seen God but He is known by His unique attributes.

I understand that ISHWAR, PARMATMA, BHAGWAN & PRABHU are the titles used for God in Hinduism. The title Bhagwaan shows attributes of dominion, might, glory, splendor, wisdom, completion, beauty, wealth, knowledge, fame, strength, renunciation and dispassion. He is beyond greed, infatuation, lust & anger. The title Prabhu means Master and title Pramatma means Supreme Soul. The title Ishwar means Supreme Controller or Supreme Power same as the Arabic title of Allah “الْعَزِيزُ”. These titles refer the same Supreme Being, Who controls everything. I understand that Shiva is the title of pre-Vedic God which was admitted into the Hindu pantheon due to its immense popularity among many non-Aryan tribes. However, later on the deity known as Rudra came to be associated with Shiva. Historians believe that the worship of Shiva was prevalent as early as 2nd or 3rd centuries B.C. So, it is said that Shiva and Ishwara are the two names represent the title of one God the Supreme Being. They are believed different forms of same God each with different characteristics or attributes and even from prospective of Hinduism the Supreme God is one - an invisible and primitive energy of the Universe. People call it by whatever name - Ishwara, Allah, God, Bhagwan etc. as they are the various titles of representative forms, manifestations, characteristics and qualities of the same Supreme Being or God.

However, making statues, images and symbols of God or His attributes are no allowed in the Quran and in the earlier revelations, which is also mentioned in Hindus’ scriptures. For example:

 “andhaṁ tamaḥ praviśanti ye 'sambhūtim upāsate tato bhūya iva te tamo ya u sambhūtyām ratāḥ” (Yajurved 40:9)

Some translate the above Sanskrit statement of Yajurved 40:9 to mean “Those who worship only the asambhuta (which has not originated) and those who worship only the sambhuta (which has originated) enter into darkness”

Some translate the same words of Yajurved 40:9 to mean: “They enter darkness those who worship natural things (for e.g. air, water, fire, etc.). They sink deeper in darkness those who worship sambhuti i.e. created things”. (Yajurved 40:9)

However, Hindus have made these attributes of God the icons of worship in the forms of images, statues and symbols, which is totally wrong and against the instructions of Allah time to time came to the world including the Quran but when they say “God” they mean the same Supreme Being known by His Title Allah in Arabic.

Therefore, their food becomes Haram (unlawful) if they dedicate their food to Hanuman, Ganesh, Laxhmi, Kali, Sheranwali or any made up living or non-living devi, devta, avatar, idol or if they refer something that is not actual God (غیر اللہ) which does not fit in the definition of Supreme Being or universal God.

As far as making and worshiping the icons, statues or symbols of God and its attribute’s we are not far away from Hindus. We worship idols more than Hindus do because they don’t worship their idols 5 times a day whereas we worship idols minimum 5 times a day facing towards the statue of Shiva, which is the black stone (Hijr-e-Aswad) of Kaaba and we dedicatedly install its idol “Moon Crescent” icon on our temples (mosques) under which we offer our prayers to idol of Shiva or moon god but in the name of Allah. We don’t realise that symbols and icons of the “Moon Crescent” are actually idols which can also be seen in all Hindu temples and on the head of the human like statue of Shiva. The Arab pagans used to worship the same Hindu idols under the banner of “the crescent of moon god” but in the name of Allah. In Makkah they still worship the Hindu’s idols and we just blindly follow them in the name of that Islam which is not given by the Quran.

However, the following verses of the Quran allow us using any appropriate title for God :

" هُوَ اللَّهُ الْخَالِقُ الْبَارِئُ الْمُصَوِّرُ لَهُ الْأَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَى " (59:24)

“He is Allah; the Creator, the Super Originator, the Artist, all appropriate/justified names belong to Him” (correct translation 59:24)

" قُلِ ادْعُواْ اللّهَ أَوِ ادْعُواْ الرَّحْمَـنَ أَيًّا مَّا تَدْعُواْ فَلَهُ الْأَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَى" (17:110)

“Told, call Allah, or call Al Rahman, whatever you call in fact all appropriate/justified names belong to Him” (correct translation 17:110)

The phrase “الْأَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَى” is self-explanatory in which “اسْمَاءُ” is a plural of given name “اسْمَ” but with the definite article “ال” the plural “الْأَسْمَاءُ” refers the particular types of name or special names, which are not ordinary names but ‘special titles’. Whereas, the word “الْحُسْنَى” refers appropriation, justification, balanced with something and within the framework of a particular infrastructure.

Regarding your question about cow meat or meat of Halal (allowed) animals cooked by Christian chefs. I can’t see any problem in it as long as they use all Halal (allowed) ingredients. Also with Christian chef the doubt of dedication of food to non-God is minimal.

However, your question of slaughtering animals in Islamic method is still debatable to me since I have found in the Quran that Kaaba is Haram (forbidden) because facing animal towards Kaaba is one of the condition of the method of Halal slaughtering written in Islamic literature, which was obviously falsely invented and attributed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) centuries after his death. So, if Kaaba is itself an idol and Haram in the Quran facing slaughtering animals towards kaaba technically renders this meat Haram (prohibited) according to the verses 2:173, 5:3, 6:145 and 16:115 of the Quran in which food dedicated to non-God have been made unlawful (حرام) together with ‘dead’, blood and ‘pig meat.

Also, the verses of the Quran in which the word “ذبح” (Zbh) is mentioned, they are wrongly translated to bring the pagan way of killing animals, which comes under brutal killing that is already banned in the Quran. Our Quranists and traditional scholars assert that the Quranic words “ذبح” (Zbh) and “ذبیحہ” (Zabiha) means not cutting the animals in one go chopping off their heads but in a way in which their blood drains gradually and slowley. I have recently found in one of my research that the animals used to be cut in the same way since well before the advent of Islam in which they used to give a cut on the jugular vein of the animals and left them to suffocate for as long as the last drop of their blood was drained because they used to believe that their gods get bigger and powerful with the blood. Therefore, they had adopted the wicked way of draining animals’ blood with slow speed to keep their god please for longer rather than instantly killing the animals.

I am fully aware of made up scientific explanations in the favour of this brutal killing “ذبح” from those Quranists and traditional scholars who don’t even know the definition of science in which they assert that when the blood drips or squeezed from the jugular vein of animal in slow speed if we leave them suffocating till the last drop of their blood comes out slowly then this meat will become free from germs and diseases. They call it “ذبیحہ” (Zabiha) to justify pagan way of killing animals but the Quran defines “ذبیحہ” (Zabiha) and “ذبح” (Zbh) to mean normal slaughtering of killing live animal to eat by cutting their neck because dead animal is not able to eat neither they are allowed. Therefore, cutting the live animal from its neck is called “ذبیحہ” (Zabiha) in the Quran and it is used in Arabic language in the same meaning. Hence, “ذبیحہ” (Zabiha) means “slaughtering” or cutting something from its neck. The same word “ذبیحہ” (Zabiha) is used in legal system and judiciary in its true meaning “slaughter” when someone kills human beings by cutting their neck. Neither, Quran certifies the blood straining method of “ذبیحہ” (Zabiha) as described by our scholars nor is it proven from its use in general and judicial Arabic language.

This is the fact which I have reluctantly explained to you but as I have said it needs good debates to reach the conclusion. I am so strict in eating proper Halal meat and used to go every Sunday to a slaughter house far away on the hill station to get hundreds of chicken slaughtered “ذبیحہ” (Zabiha) in proper traditional Islamic way with my own hands and stocked them up in my large freezer and distributed to some Muslim families. I used to take my own knife which used to contain minimum 3 nails on its handle according to the described Sunnah and I used to hold each and every chicken towards Kaaba and cut their jugular vein just half way with the care that the cut shouldn’t be deeper and the neck shouldn’t be chopped off. Then I used to throw this half jugular vein cut chicken in to a big plastic container in which they used to suffocate and kick with severe pain. When they used to get quite I peel off their skin and cut them into pieces. Those days Halal meat shops became doubtful in London after the raid of health inspector of local government who found that the ‘Pak Butcher’ who was a trustee of mosque and had a long beard was secretly selling pork mince mixed in Halal mince. Although the UK is a non-Muslim country and eating pork is allowed in this country but they are very strict on selling items what you describe on your trading boards and what is mentioned in your trade license. The Pak Butcher was charged with dishonesty to his customers on the allegations that he had displayed Halal meat on his boards but was selling Haram meat. When this news reached the media and was circulated everywhere we stopped buying Halal meat from the meat shops and I found a slaughter house who allowed me to slaughter chickens in an Islamic way.

However, I have since stopped going to slaughter houses because Halal Food Authority and Halal Monitoring Committee have taken over the slaughtering and supply Halal meat to the public outlets. I still don’t eat meat from any other so called Halal butcher except pure Halal meat slaughtered and tagged by Halal Monitoring Committee (HMC), despite knowing the fact that this is the pagan way of killing the animals which was incorporated in Islam centuries after when pagans took over the control of Islamic State of Arabia.

When I go abroad I don’t eat meat and just survive on vegetarian food. This is just a matter of my habit or belief established since my childhood but not verified from the Quran. Hence, I have many reservations about slaughtering method of Halal meat incorporated in modified Islam, which is not justified in the light of the Quran but practically I am very strict in eating only Halal meat slaughtered in the same way. Therefore, to be very honest I am unable to give you my personal opinion on this matter as we still need to go into more debate on this issue. However, you can do your own research and make up your mind on the basis of your own findings.

Regards,

Dr. Kashif Khan