Is Swine Hallal
-
Peace Tanveer,
I agree, the thing is if one is saying khanazeer is not pig, then explain what is wrong with pig first. Try to see why it doesn't work. If everything works out with no contradiction, then there is no need to think it must be something else. The way this whole thread has gone, it's like... I think khanazeer is this ad nauseum, and ignoring the fact that it works fine as pig. agenda
Let us summarize PB's argument
-
6146 does not say jews were forbidden pig and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
-
In 55 what's good for the jews is good for us and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
-
Therefore we can eat pig and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
To which I replied
- 6146 also does not say those were the ONLY restrictions, but it doesn't matter, because exceptions/restrictions on the believers apply regardless of what the jews are allowed or not allowed. Lahma khinzeerin is the meat of pig.
1a) According to the above 'logic', IF jews were not forbidden pig, they were not forbidden the 11 restrictions/haram (on food) that applies to us too. Does it mean it's okay to eat the 11 haram items in normal times?
-
As seen by the logical continuation of my point number 1, what's good for the people of the book is good for us UNLESS otherwise specified. It's like taking one verse from the quran and saying, thats it. If you just take 2172 it's the same thing as 55 as you won't see the restrictions and it will mean NO restrictions for the believers. The reason why 55 says people of the book, is that people don't start thinking their food is haram because they don't believe in the quran. It doesn't mean you IGNORE the restrictions already placed on the believers in numerous verses. Lahma khinzeerin is the meat of pig.
-
No we can't eat something we have been restricted from, none of the 11 unless forced by necessity etc. If lahma khinzeerin is not pig, (it's pig meat btw lol ) STOP with the convoluted arguments and address the issue of the word NOT meaning pig OR pig meat. Simple.
-
-
PEACE, JAXAL,
SaLaM PB
Fair enough. Can i ask you for a favour? i was trying to find a link to his dictonary online. IF you have it, can you please give it to me?
Now, if you believe that khanzeeren translate into unclean, rotten or whatever it is u twist it out to be, can you back this up using any other verse which uses the word khanzeeren to show uncleanliness, rotten or whatever you think it?
I've already done this. I've given you the Arabic definition for khanaza, as well as, the ayat where it mentions certain people becoming apes and swine. The Arabic word for swine there is khanzeerin. Their conduct was ill-seeming/unclean; nothing to do with them actually shape-shifting into the animal pig.
-
SaLaM PB
Do u have the online link for the Abdul Manan Dictonary?
According to my dictonary, the arabic word for pig is Khanzeeren. PLUS the fact that i speak arabic. Even leaving that aside. Im just not seeing your point. Are u looking at the correct verse? Here is the verse
Innama harrama AAalaykumu almaytata waalddama walahma alkhinzeeri wama ohilla bihi lighayri Allahi famani idturra ghayra baghin wala AAadin fala ithma AAalayhi inna Allaha ghafoorun raheemun
Qul hal onabbi-okum bisharrin min thalika mathoobatan AAinda Allahi man laAAanahu Allahu waghadiba AAalayhi wajaAAala minhumu alqiradata waalkhanazeera waAAabada alttaghooti ola-ika sharrun makanan waadallu AAan sawa-i alssabeeli
Its says pig. Where is it saying uncleanl? Infact, do you even know the word for unclean? Use the verse ive given you, and bold out the word for unclean.
-
SC,
PBM 1. Let's say, for argument sake that, ayat 6146 is a continuation of ayat 6145. Now, the only animals named in ayat 6146 are the category of animals with claws, oxen, and sheep. There is no controversy regarding the animals mentioned in ayat 6146.
6146 is a countinuation of the previous with the logical connector AND, it mentions additional restrictions. Thus taking it all together you would have lahma khinzeerin as part of it.
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed? Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them long before the coming of Al-quran, hence, ayat 6146 cannot be an additional punishment for them after the coming of Al-Quran, because by the time ayat 6145-6 were revealed, they already declared the pig haram to eat. According to your's and Tanveer's logic, the Jews were given an additional punishment of not eating pig, yet, long before ayats 6145-6 were revealed, they had long declared pig haram to themselves and were not eating it. What is your chronology for you conjectures? Do you see your error now?
As above, it's a countinuation...and whatever was made haram/halal for the jews not should NOT be a cause of concern for the believer who already has the RESTRICTIONS/EXCEPTIONS detailed to him in the quran.
"Should not", is a purely speculative/conjectural phrase. Let's remain definitive,shall we? Thus, we can thus throw that phrase out. If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed? Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them long before the coming of Al-quran, hence, ayat 6146 cannot be an additional punishment for them after the coming of Al-Quran, because by the time ayat 6145-6 were revealed, they already declared the pig haram to eat. According to your's and Tanveer's logic, the Jews were given an additional punishment of not eating pig, yet, long before ayats 6145-6 were revealed, they had long declared pig haram to themselves and were not eating it. What is your chronology for you conjectures? Do you see your error now?
PBM 3. If the pig, was in a fact an animal made haram for Jews, a People of the Book, then it would have had to have claws per ayat 6146.
6146 tells us of additional restrictions for their punishment as detailed in my posts so many times. NOT the only ones. Conclusion based on false premise of ONLY restrictions.
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed? Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them long before the coming of Al-quran, hence, ayat 6146 cannot be an additional punishment for them after the coming of Al-Quran, because by the time ayat 6145-6 were revealed, they already declared the pig haram to eat. According to your's and Tanveer's logic, the Jews were given an additional punishment of not eating pig, yet, long before ayats 6145-6 were revealed, they had long declared pig haram to themselves and were not eating it. What is your chronology for you conjectures? Do you see your error now?
PBM 4. Now, given that pigs don't have claws, it could not have possibly come under the category of prohibited animals of the Jews, hence, it was halal for them.
Conclusion based on false premise of ONLY restrictions.
LOL! What false premise? I'm offering Allah's Words and you are offering conjecture/speculation. Now, either pigs have claws or they don't!If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed? Did pig become haram for Jews before or after 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them long before the coming of Al-Quran, hence, ayat 6146 cannot be an additional punishment for them after the coming of Al-Quran, because by the time ayat 6145-6 were revealed, they already declared the pig haram to eat. What is your chronology for this event? Do you see your error now
PBM 6. Given point 5, khinzerin, in ayat 6145 cannot mean pig either, otherwise, it would contradict 55 and 6146.
Conclusion based on false premise of ONLY restrictions.
350 "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
55 This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them.
What, exactly, is the false premise? Neither you nor Tanveer have shown, via Al-Quran, where Allah prohibited the Jews from eating pig. You claim that it was an additional punishment, however, for this to be an additional punishment, pig, prior to the advent of the Jews, would have had to have already been haram for mankind. Where, in Al-Quran, does Allah prohibited mankind from eating swine prior to ayats 6145? By the time ayat 6145 comes into existence, the Jews, had already delcared that swine was haram for themselves according to the Law of Moses, hence, where is the additional punishment? If your "premises and conclusions" are to be accepted, you must prove, via Al-Quran that, mankind, in fact, was prohibited from eating swine PRIOR to ayats 6145-6 being revealed, then and only then, might you have a case for the "additional punishment" conjecture. If you conclude that mankind was only prohibited from eating pig after the revealing of ayats 6145-6, and it is an additional punishment for the Jews, then, prior to the ayats 6145, pig, was not haram for mankind. If you cannot do this, then, your conjectures, contradicts ayats 55 and 350.
PBM 7. Ayat 6146 is not a continuation of ayat 645, relative to, the prohibited foods to the Jews. Allah, never says to the Jews..." I now make pigs, in addition to animals with claws and the fat of of oxen and sheep, haram for you".
You have based an entire progression of conclusions on a false premise even though you say "Let's say, for argument sake that, ayat 6146 is a continuation of ayat 6145"...Well done!
A meaningless non-answer.
PBM 8. The question that now comes to mind is...was pig haram for Noah, Abraham, Lot, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, and their respective peoples? If not, did Allah simply allow them to eat foul meat, only to later make it haram? Moses and Aaron were righteous men, were they also forbidden to eat pig? If it was haram for the aforemention people, where does Allah state this in Al-Quran and, what makes it haram for later people and not the former, and when does this occur?
The question that now comes to mind is will you read my post the next time you respond? Time and time again it's written, these restrictions are for the believers in the quran, only the jewish people are mentioned in al quran as having additional restrictions as a PUNISHMENT. So why do you want to CONJECTURE about Noah etc.
You did not answer the above question and, until you do so, you cannot transform your conjectures into Quranic fact. Please answer the above question with facts, no ducking, thanks.
You keep running away from our questions and keep coming back with the same assertions...it's called pushing an agenda and turning a blind eye to everything else. Look, if you want to eat pork, eat it...stop justifying it as a result of your guilt trip and do respond to my previous posts, the ones you ran from...Thank you!
You're falling more and more into conjectural rants, please stay focused.
Looking toward your reply.
-
PEACE, TANVEER,
He has also persistently CONJECTURED as to what exactly Jesus made lawful to Jews in 350.
6146 And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.
All Allah SAYS is...Jesus, was given the authority to make part of what was haram to the Jews, halal. Ayat 6146 tells the logical, exactly, what was made haram to the Jews. Now, what part of that did he make halal, well, Allah does not say only that a part was made halal. A question, do pigs have wings and claws? lol
quote]Unless he answers our posts, and refrains from conjecturing, his case is closed.
LOL!! Come on don't cut and run now, dude. I know you and SC are beginning to see the untenableness of your assertions. You and SC, have not addressed the following points, please do
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and SC claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed? Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them long before the coming of Al-quran, hence, ayat 6146 cannot be an additional punishment for them after the coming of Al-Quran, because by the time ayat 6145-6 were revealed, they already declared the pig haram to eat. According to your's and Tanveer's logic, the Jews were given an additional punishment of not eating pig, yet, long before ayats 6145-6 were revealed, they had long declared pig haram to themselves and were not eating it. What is your chronology for you conjectures? Do you see your error now?
"Should not", is a purely speculative/conjectural phrase. Let's remain definitive,shall we? Thus, we can thus throw that phrase out. If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed? Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them long before the coming of Al-quran, hence, ayat 6146 cannot be an additional punishment for them after the coming of Al-Quran, because by the time ayat 6145-6 were revealed, they already declared the pig haram to eat. According to your's and Tanveer's logic, the Jews were given an additional punishment of not eating pig, yet, long before ayats 6145-6 were revealed, they had long declared pig haram to themselves and were not eating it. What is your chronology for you conjectures? Do you see your error now?
I'm offering Allah's Words and you are offering conjecture/speculation. Now, either pigs have claws or they don't!If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed? Did pig become haram for Jews before or after 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them long before the coming of Al-Quran, hence, ayat 6146 cannot be an additional punishment for them after the coming of Al-Quran, because by the time ayat 6145-6 were revealed, they already declared the pig haram to eat. What is your chronology for this event? Do you see your error now
350 "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
55 This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them.
What, exactly, is the false premise? Neither you nor SC have shown, via Al-Quran, where Allah prohibited the Jews from eating pig. You claim that it was an additional punishment, however, for this to be an additional punishment, pig, prior to the advent of the Jews, would have had to have already been haram for mankind. Where, in Al-Quran, does Allah prohibited mankind from eating swine prior to ayats 6145? By the time ayat 6145 comes into existence, the Jews, had already delcared that swine was haram for themselves according to the Law of Moses, hence, where is the additional punishment? If your "premises and conclusions" are to be accepted, you must prove, via Al-Quran that, mankind, in fact, was prohibited from eating swine PRIOR to ayats 6145-6 being revealed, then and only then, might you have a case for the "additional punishment" conjecture. If you conclude that mankind was only prohibited from eating pig after the revealing of ayats 6145-6, and it is an additional punishment for the Jews, then, prior to the ayats 6145, pig, was not haram for mankind. If you cannot do this, then, your conjectures, contradicts ayats 55 and 350.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
PB,
You actually sat and wrote all that? You are not here to discuss but to enforce your view. I will keep repeating till you answer (thats what I always end up doing) this time it's even more condensed...try to keep your points condensed instead of rambling all over the place k?
Let us summarize PB's argument
-
6146 does not say jews were forbidden pig and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
-
In 55 what's good for the jews is good for us and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
-
Therefore we can eat pig and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
To which I replied
- 6146 also does not say those were the ONLY restrictions, but it doesn't matter, because exceptions/restrictions on the believers apply regardless of what the jews are allowed or not allowed. Lahma khinzeerin is the meat of pig.
1a) According to the above 'logic', IF jews were not forbidden pig, they were not forbidden the 11 restrictions/haram (on food) that applies to us too. Does it mean it's okay to eat the 11 haram items in normal times?
-
As seen by the logical continuation of my point number 1, what's good for the people of the book is good for us UNLESS otherwise specified. It's like taking one verse from the quran and saying, thats it. If you just take 2172 it's the same thing as 55 as you won't see the restrictions and it will mean NO restrictions for the believers. The reason why 55 says people of the book, is that people don't start thinking their food is haram because they don't believe in the quran. It doesn't mean you IGNORE the restrictions already placed on the believers in numerous verses. Lahma khinzeerin is the meat of pig.
-
No we can't eat something we have been restricted from, none of the 11 unless forced by necessity etc. If lahma khinzeerin is not pig, (it's pig meat btw ) STOP with the convoluted arguments and address the issue of the word NOT meaning pig OR pig meat. Simple.
-
-
SaLaM PB
If you dont know the arabic word for unclean then say so. Dont be ashamed. We are all here to help and guide. mmmmmmmmmmmmmm kay? LOoooooooooooooooooooooooollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHHHAAHAHAHAAHAHA
-
Peace,
Peace Anwar,
But 55 says "the good things have been made lawful to you" and 2172 says "eat of the good things". If "ALL food is lawful", then why does 55 and 2172 mention "good things"?
Good and bad is relative UNLESS specified with a standard...Or in another way...what is forbidden is specified to you, make up your mind to the rest.
I think you should teach "God" about "Good and bad is relative UNLESS specified with a standard". Who revealed 55 and 2172? Uh uh... not me nope. Did "He" leave out the standard?
Anwar Azim
-
Peace,
I think you should teach "God" about "Good and bad is relative UNLESS specified with a standard". Who revealed 55 and 2172? Uh uh... not me . Did "He" leave out the standard?
I should teach God? Right. Maybe we should all teach ourselves the quran better. There was more to my quote btw.
God didn't leave anything out. Good food is not specified in the quran is it? It's a generalisation that means ALL that God has provided with EXCEPTIONS if you take all the verses in the quran.
But exceptions/restrictions ARE specified in the quran. You want to call them bad thats upto you. Anything can be bad depending on a variety of factors. So are only the restrictions BAD? Can the restrictions be GOOD as well depending on variables/situations/factors? Is all GOOD food, good ALL the time? Can GOOD food be BAD depending on variables/situations/factors? They are what they are, restrictions... God calls them fiqsun or corrupted, and He additionally calls pig meat 'rijsun' or unclean/dirty/filthy.
Forbidden to you is that which is already dead, and the blood, and the meat of pig, and what was sacrificed to other than God, and that which has been strangled, and that which has been beaten to death, and that which has fallen from a height, and that which has been gored, and that which the wild animals have eaten from except what you managed to rescue, and what has been slaughtered on alters, and what you divide by the arrows of chance. This is all vile (fisqun). (53)
Say ?I do not find in what is inspired to me forbidden except that it be already dead, or blood, or the meat of pig, for it is foul (rijsun) ; or what is corruptly (fisqan) dedicated to other than God.? Whoever is forced without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful. (6145)
So if you want to discuss this, please open up a seperate thead about good food and bad food in the quran. Thanks.
Additionally I wanted to add that I see your point and it's quite a good point...It would be interesting to discuss it and see if there is a standard for neutral or that restricted as being just restricted or because of a reason?!?! )
-
arrow
-
PEACE, TANVEER,
You need to answer the following questions which you continue to duck and, unless you do, your's and SC's "additional punishment" conjecture, remains just that...conjecture. Give us the chronology for you conjectures?
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
-
SC,
No ramble at all, but I will make things simpler for you. You need to answer the following questions which you continue to duck and, unless you do, your's and Tanveers's "additional punishment" conjecture, remains just that...conjecture. Give us the chronology for you conjectures?
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
-
PB,
I'm done with you UNLESS you address my post
Let us summarize PB's argument
-
6146 does not say jews were forbidden pig and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
-
In 55 what's good for the jews is good for us and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
-
Therefore we can eat pig and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
To which I replied
- 6146 also does not say those were the ONLY restrictions, but it doesn't matter, because exceptions/restrictions on the believers apply regardless of what the jews are allowed or not allowed. Lahma khinzeerin is the meat of pig.
1a) According to the above 'logic', IF jews were not forbidden pig, they were not forbidden the 11 restrictions/haram (on food) that applies to us too. Does it mean it's okay to eat the 11 haram items in normal times?
-
As seen by the logical continuation of my point number 1, what's good for the people of the book is good for us UNLESS otherwise specified. It's like taking one verse from the quran and saying, thats it. If you just take 2172 it's the same thing as 55 as you won't see the restrictions and it will mean NO restrictions for the believers. The reason why 55 says people of the book, is that people don't start thinking their food is haram because they don't believe in the quran. It doesn't mean you IGNORE the restrictions already placed on the believers in numerous verses. Lahma khinzeerin is the meat of pig.
-
No we can't eat something we have been restricted from, none of the 11 unless forced by necessity etc. If lahma khinzeerin is not pig, (it's pig meat btw ) STOP with the convoluted arguments and address the issue of the word NOT meaning pig OR pig meat. Simple.
-
-
SC,
I know you wish to now cut and run, but it is too late and, unless you do, your's and Tanveers's "additional punishment" conjecture, remains just that...conjecture. When you answer the following two questions put to you, you will at the same time have the answers to your questions.
Give us the chronology for your conjectures?
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
It's time to step up, because if you and tanveer run now, all will know that you are simply running away from having to admit to your error. wink
Looking forward to your reply.
-
-
PB,
It's time you addressed the multiple posts that you have not addressed.
Once you do that you will have the answers to your supposed contradictions and see where your conjecture lies.
All already can make up their own minds as to what they read wink
Let us summarize PB's argument
-
6146 does not say jews were forbidden pig and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
-
In 55 what's good for the jews is good for us and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
-
Therefore we can eat pig and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
To which I replied
- 6146 also does not say those were the ONLY restrictions, but it doesn't matter, because exceptions/restrictions on the believers apply regardless of what the jews were allowed or not allowed. Lahma khinzeerin is the meat of pig.
1a) According to the above 'logic', IF jews were not forbidden pig, they were not forbidden the 11 restrictions/haram (on food) that applies to us too. Does it mean it's okay to eat the 11 haram items in normal times?
-
As seen by the logical continuation of my point number 1, what's good for the people of the book is good for us UNLESS otherwise specified. It's like taking one verse from the quran and saying, thats it. If you just take 2172 it's the same thing as 55 as you won't see the restrictions and it will mean NO restrictions for the believers. The reason why 55 says people of the book, is that people don't start thinking their food is haram because they don't believe in the quran. It doesn't mean you IGNORE the restrictions already placed on the believers in numerous verses. Lahma khinzeerin is the meat of pig.
-
No we can't eat something we have been restricted from, none of the 11 unless forced by necessity etc. If lahma khinzeerin is not pig, (it's pig meat btw ) STOP with the convoluted arguments and address the issue of the word NOT meaning pig OR pig meat. Simple.
-
-
SC,
It is obvious now to ALL that, your's and Tanveer's, "additional punishment" conjecture, is just that...CONJECTURE.
The following questions/statements, are my answer to your questions. So, why are you going to defend your conjecture and resolve the following?
Give us the chronology for your conjectures?
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
In order for your additional punishment conjecture to translate into Quranic fact you must answer them, there is simply no way around this fact. Of course you realize this and that is way you and Tanveer want to now stall, cut and run, because to answer them truthfully, will result in your having to admit that your premises and conclusions are just plain out of touch with Quranic reality.
You can run, I will not pursue you. The members here now know the truth of this subject.
-
-
PB,
The following questions/statements, are my answer to your questions.
No, they are not, as anyone reading my post can see it doesn't matter what the jews were allowed or not allowed. It's a red herring that you threw in.
You can run, I will not pursue you. The members here now know the truth of this subject.
The members can make up their own minds as to what they read.
Reply to my post if you can.
-
SC,
PBMThe following questions/statements, are my answer to your questions.
No, they are not, as anyone reading my post can see it doesn't matter what the jews were allowed or not allowed. It's a red herring that you threw in.
Yes, they are the answers to your questions, and, no, no red herring at all. You and Tanveer assert that the Jews were given additional punishments, these are your words not mine so defend them . If what you assert is true, then you must establish the chronology for that assertion, meaning, when were these punishments added on...before the revealing of Al-Quran or after the revealing of Al-Quran, which is it?
-
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed?
-
Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them based on the Law of Moses/The Torah, and this occurs before the revealing of ayats 6145-6.
In order for your additional punishment conjecture to translate into Quranic fact you must address the above two points, there is simply no way around this fact. You're jammed now, eh?
No more excuses; give us the chronology... if you can. wink
-
-
PB,
Let me acquaint you with the rules of debate. I have a post with certain points. You address those points. You have failed to address those points on multiple occasions all the while insisting on your own.That is NOT debate, that is enforcement.
What the jews were allowed OR not allowed is a RED HERRING because it is independent of your conclusion. In simpler words, whether jews were allowed pig meat OR not, does not mean that we can eat it too. If you are insisting on this point, it has proven to be independent of your conclusion as is mentioned in my posts, hence a red herring. If someone insists on throwing red herrings then that is called OBFUSCATION or hiding behind skirts because your argument is not good enough to stand on its own.
I said in page 1 of this thread
What's the deal then with the jews being allowed/not forbidden lahma khinzeerin and it's thus okay for all of us (in reality it is in blatant contradiction with many verses including 6147) when one does not accept lahma khinzeerin as pig meat? Because even IF lahma khinzeerin is not pig meat it's still HARAM to mankind which makes the former part of the argument inclusive of 6148 fall flat...
The real discussion and the only recourse, instead of focusing on flawed logic, is to PROVE that lahma khinzeerin is NOT pig meat...which is what has been done here many times with no conclusive results...You have insisted on NOT answering this point throughout let alone others. It would be a mistake to go after what the jews were allowed or not allowed as that is IRRELEVANT. The believers have their restrictions/exceptions made clear INDEPENDENT of what the jews were allowed.
Make up a seperate thread for "were these the ONLY restrictions" because it is IRRELEVANT to the topic of can we eat pig meat. Address my posts if you can.