DO AYATS 5:5 AND 6:146, PRECLUDE THE PIG AS BEING HARAM...?
-
My analysis that PGM is not a muslim and just pretending to be, I met a few of those online but always exposed them
I may be wrong, but I will see if he "the non arabic speaker truely understands the arabic words"
now if he kept ranting about the same subject, he has to be one or the other
- He is obssessed with pigs
- He is faking his islam and just to stir the air between muslims
Your above ad hominem...is not a refutation of my analysis nor does it advance your own analysis. The only thing you've exposed is that, you are determined to support SUPERSTITION in derogation of Allah's Quran and truth. Allah, did not tell you to take any of the previous Books for your Guidance along with Al-Quran, and, if you maintain that He does, then you are a liar, mate. Again, the corrupted/doubtful Torah, claims that animals with undivided hoofs were haram, however, Al-Quran contradicts that, in that, it says that only animals with claws were haram to the Jews. Now, which Book do you believe has the correct account? Don't you think Allah knows the difference between a hoof and a claw, though apparently, you and Marie do not? lol
Your "argument" has be thoroughly dismantled. If you wish to serve your gods--SUPERSTITION and CONJECTURE, then that is fine by me. bravo
Oh, yeah and...stop being a...SNEAK...and now a...SLANDERER as well.
-
Another profile record added to Profiler 2005 database
lol
-
Another profile record added to Profiler 2005 database
lol
Your above ad hominem...is not a refutation of my analysis nor does it advance your own analysis. The only thing you've exposed is that, you are determined to support SUPERSTITION in derogation of Allah's Quran and truth. Allah, did not tell you to take any of the previous Books for your Guidance along with Al-Quran, and, if you maintain that He does, then you are a liar, mate. Again, the corrupted/doubtful Torah, claims that animals with undivided hoofs were haram, however, Al-Quran contradicts that, in that, it says that only animals with claws were haram to the Jews. Now, which Book do you believe has the correct account? Don't you think Allah knows the difference between a hoof and a claw, though apparently, you and Marie do not? lol
Your "argument" has been thoroughly dismantled. If you wish to serve your gods--SUPERSTITION and CONJECTURE, then that is fine by me. bravo
Oh, yeah and...stop being a...SNEAK.
Oh, btw, When you turn to personal attacks, you scream out that you have been thoroughly proved wrong....loser lol
-
Please mate
Profiler 2005 does not accept duplicates
can you come with something new so the program has enough info to profile you?
cheers wink
-
Please mate
Profiler 2005 does not accept duplicates
can you come with something new so the program has enough info to profile you?
cheers wink
Your above ad hominem...is not a refutation of my analysis nor does it advance your own analysis. The only thing you've exposed is that, you are determined to support SUPERSTITION in derogation of Allah's Quran and truth. Allah, did not tell you to take any of the previous Books for your Guidance along with Al-Quran, and, if you maintain that He does, then you are a liar, mate. Again, the corrupted/doubtful Torah, claims that animals with undivided hoofs were haram, however, Al-Quran contradicts that, in that, it says that only animals with claws were haram to the Jews. Now, which Book do you believe has the correct account? Don't you think Allah knows the difference between a hoof and a claw, though apparently, you and Marie do not? lol
Your "argument" has been thoroughly dismantled. If you wish to serve your gods--SUPERSTITION and CONJECTURE, then that is fine by me. bravo
Oh, yeah and...stop being a...SNEAK...and now a...SLANDERER.
Oh, btw, When you turn to personal attacks, you scream out that you have been thoroughly proved wrong....loser lol
-
got you in no time
twisted
-
got you in no time
twisted
When you resort to personal attacks, you scream out that you have been thoroughly proved wrong...accept that and move on.
-
PBM and Babe the Aussie Pig
do you like this movie title?
there also PBM and Wesekh the Egyptian Pig
which one you prefer for my next blockbuster?
I'm not kiddin lol
-
PBM and Babe the Aussie Pig
do you like this movie title?
there also PBM and Wesekh the Egyptian Pig
which one you prefer for my next blockbuster?
I'm not kiddin lol
When you resort to personal attacks, you scream out that you have been thoroughly proved wrong...accept that and move on.
-
-
The basic argument was that since food of the People of Book {Toraat and Injeel--Jews and Christians] has been declared permissible for the Believers and that since it is not mentioned in Qur'aan that meat of pig was prohibited for People of Book, therefore, meat of pig becomes permissible for believers too.
The food of People of Book is permissible. But which food? The food that has been declared permissible for Jews and Christians by the Last Messenger Muhammad Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam and what he has declared prohibited for them that will obviously not be permissible for believers if they do not abide by the command of the Messenger, recorded not in history, but in the Qur'aan.
And exactly the same is permissible and prohibited for the believer. The pig is declared Haram for the believers and so is declared Haram for Jews and Christians in the Qur'aan. They accept it or not, it is their choice. No compulsion in Deen, the physical conduct of life.
-
The basic argument was that since food of the People of Book {Toraat and Injeel--Jews and Christians] has been declared permissible for the Believers and that since it is not mentioned in Qur'aan that meat of pig was prohibited for People of Book, therefore, meat of pig becomes permissible for believers too.
The food of People of Book is permissible. But which food? The food that has been declared permissible for Jews and Christians by the Last Messenger Muhammad Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam and what he has declared prohibited for them that will obviously not be permissible for believers if they do not abide by the command of the Messenger, recorded not in history, but in the Qur'aan.
And exactly the same is permissible and prohibited for the believer. The pig is declared Haram for the believers and so is declared Haram for Jews and Christians in the Qur'aan. They accept it or not, it is their choice. No compulsion in Deen, the physical conduct of life.
bravo
-
The basic argument was that since food of the People of Book {Toraat and Injeel--Jews and Christians] has been declared permissible for the Believers and that since it is not mentioned in Qur'aan that meat of pig was prohibited for People of Book, therefore, meat of pig becomes permissible for believers too.
The food of People of Book is permissible. But which food? The food that has been declared permissible for Jews and Christians by the Last Messenger Muhammad Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam and what he has declared prohibited for them that will obviously not be permissible for believers if they do not abide by the command of the Messenger, recorded not in history, but in the Qur'aan.
And exactly the same is permissible and prohibited for the believer. The pig is declared Haram for the believers and so is declared Haram for Jews and Christians in the Qur'aan. They accept it or not, it is their choice. No compulsion in Deen, the physical conduct of life.
salam
thank you very much, this clarified it perfectly
peace
-
Peace
The people of the book or the Jews and Christians did not need to be told that Pig/swine is haram , they knew this from their own scriptures . " And the swine........you shall not eat of their flesh , nor touch their dead carcass " , Deutoronomy 148 . Other similar verses also can be found in Leviticus 117 and 1180 , but there are more of them .
almarh0m
-
What is the status of Donkey''s meat ,lion's meat and Dog's meat etc for the muslims?
RegardsQur'aan says from herbivores some are declared permissible for eating. Dog and lion are not herbivores. Donkey has specifically been declared as beast of burden and not for eating.
Pl try to read the classification of animal kingdom in the Qur'aan. Everything has been made distinct and evident for human guidance.
-
Qur'aan says from herbivores some are declared permissible for eating. Dog and lion are not herbivores. Donkey has specifically been declared as beast of burden and not for eating.
Pl try to read the classification of animal kingdom in the Qur'aan. Everything has been made distinct and evident for human guidance.
Salaam
Would you provide appropriate verses ?
Thanks -
Qur'aan says from herbivores some are declared permissible for eating. Dog and lion are not herbivores. Donkey has specifically been declared as beast of burden and not for eating.
Pl try to read the classification of animal kingdom in the Qur'aan. Everything has been made distinct and evident for human guidance.
"He only prohibits for you the
eating of animals that die of them-
selves (without human interference),
blood, the meat of pigs, and
animals dedicated to other than God..." (2173)The whole "only herbivores is halal" comes from hadith. This is what Sunnis and Shias uphold. Shias even say that only white fish are halal out of the sea animals. Hanafis also say that crabs are haram. All of this is BS.
To forbid something which GOD did not prohibit is a major sin. Following hadith to get prohibitions and upoholding them is shirk, since one talks another authority besides God for religious law. This means that God is not enough as a law maker or just in general.
Peace
-
"He only prohibits for you the
eating of animals that die of them-
selves (without human interference),
blood, the meat of pigs, and
animals dedicated to other than God..." (2173)The whole "only herbivores is halal" comes from hadith. This is what Sunnis and Shias uphold. Shias even say that only white fish are halal out of the sea animals. Hanafis also say that crabs are haram. All of this is BS.
To forbid something which GOD did not prohibit is a major sin. Following hadith to get prohibitions and upoholding them is shirk, since one talks another authority besides God for religious law. This means that God is not enough as a law maker or just in general.
Peace
bravo