Is Swine Hallal
-
SC,
Peace all,
The points are clear and concise in my multiple posts regarding as to what is the satisfactory conclusion. If anyone else has any questions as to what they are not clear on, I'll do my best to answer them. What I will NOT do, is repeat myself constantly for someone who is not pursuing fair debate. And by the way, to those following the debate, do note the way the questions have been phrased for yes or no answers, it's quite interesting wink
Unless new information comes up that I think I need to address, the case is closed.
LOL! I knew you were full of hot air, conjecture, and bluff. Listen, if you really knew what you were talking about, you'd have absolutely no problem answering a simple yes or no to those questions.
You're finished. I will turn my attention to Danish, Thor, and Tanveer. When you decide to answer those questions, we can continue our contact, otherwise, you simply have nothing to offer that is Quranic fact.
-
Peace all,
Since this has got to do with Danish's questions, I'll try to answer...the post addressed to Thor is actually addressed to me ?
Really? and how did you come by this knowing? Does Allah state this criterion for judging literal from not literal in His Quran? Prove this with Allah's ayats. If not, then you have simply made it up.
One comes by this knowing by reading the quran. Danish gave very good examples like
Secondly, there are many words in the Quran, which carries the same meaning yet conveys both metaphorical and literal understandings, such as 'hand', 'blind', etc., don't you think?
I would add other examples like bowing and prostrating etc.
What I said was, what is ill-seeming/unseemly/not good/bad, can be applied easily with no discrepancy, to both behaviors and substances.
And what I said was that it is causing a discrepancy when using it as so, as detailed in my posts.
Double talk and convoluted mystifications. Let me ask you a few questions
Given that, khanaza, means "that which I see as bad", can't any type of meat not properly refrigerated be seen as "bad/ill-seeming/unseemly"? The homeless, driven by necessity, often eat meat just in this state. Is this not true? Likewise, when we look out at people, who habitually do the wrong thing more often than not, don't we see them as being bad people, meaning, isn't their behavior "bad"/ill-seeming/unseemly"?
Apparently, it's quite clear to others. Unless PB can address the issue of what rijsun means and what khanzeerin then means, he is in a redundancy of serious magnitude. Apart from that, the word must make complete grammatical/semantical sense as well, as to what it's conveying...keeping in mind its definition, when used in a sentence with whichever definition you slap it with. So once again, it remains to be explained why a noun is described by an adjective and is further described with another adjective, that mean the same.
Tanveer also asked the same questions repeatedly
-
Given that "rijsun" is the word used by Allah in 6145 to mean "bad/unclean/dirty/filthy" as an adjective for lahma khinzeerin, how can you say that "khinzeerin" used in the same ayat is also an adjective of "lahma" meaning the same as "rijsun" ?
-
Please show ONE other ayat in Qur'aan, where Allah uses 2 adjectives in a row, meaning the same, for the same noun.
-
Given that the phrase in Arabic meaning bad/dirty meat using the word "khinzeerin" would be "lahmoun khinzeerin", and not "lahma khinzeerin", why do you keep insisiting that "LAHMA KHINZEERIN" means "bad/dirty meat" ?
Lahma khinzerin, that is, "flesh which looks bad/unseemly", is only being emphasized by the term rajisa. Allah, it appears, is only stressing just how 'unclean/bad" lahama khinzerin really is, and that it should only be consumed when absolutely necessary for one's survival.
A noun is already described by an adjective and then again being emphasized by using another adjective that means the same? That makes the literary quality suffer, as well as create a redundancy when we know God chooses His words with logical precision. It is a serious redundancy indeed. Which does NOT happen if the word used is a noun. Each and every restriction should only be consumed when absolutely necessary, doesn't explain why lahma khinzeerin is singled out for use with a double adjective meaning the same for one noun in the same verse.
You're finished. I will turn my attention to Danish, Thor, and Tanveer. When you decide to answer those questions, we can continue our contact, otherwise, you simply have nothing to offer that is Quranic fact.
You are out of line with your comments, when YOU DECIDE TO ANSWER MY POSTS, I will answer yours. That is fair debate which you don't have the gumption to pursue. Unless you do, refrain from stupid remarks and do what we all come here to, debate and discuss FAIRLY.
-
-
PEACE, TANVEER,
Tell you what, answer the 15 questions which SC, refused to answer. She was terrified to go on record with a simple yes or no response, hence, she is only conjecturing and knows it. When you answer those questions, myself and all, will clearly know your position. Once this is clear, then I can respond to your questions with more efficiency. Will you go on record and answer those questions? Remember, it is you and the others, who are advocating that lahma khinzerin means the the flesh of swine, thus, the burden of proof is on you good people and not me.
Looking forward to the answers to those 15 questions.
-
Peace Priest Bokmei,
Tell you what, answer the 15 questions which SC, refused to answer. She was terrified to go on record with a simple yes or no response, hence, she is only conjecturing and knows it. When you answer those questions, myself and all, will clearly know your position. Once this is clear, then I can respond to your questions with more efficiency. Will you go on record and answer those questions? Remember, it is you and the others, who are advocating that lahma khinzerin means the the flesh of swine, thus, the burden of proof is on you good people and not me.
You have the guts to ask me to answer your questions when you have not answered mine, which I asked you BEFORE you asked me ?? That is being RUDE, DISCOURTEOUS, and DISRESPECTFUL.
Tell you what, read my previous post and answer the 9 questions at the end, which you have refused to answer. You are terrified to go on record with responses to my questions, hence, you are only conjecturing and know it. When you answer those questions, myself and all, will clearly know your position. Once this is clear, then I can respond to your questions with more efficiency. Will you go on record and answer those questions? Remember, it is you, who is conjecturing as to what lahma khinzeerin means, thus, the burden of proof is on you and not me.
Looking forward to the answers to my 9 questions.
-
PEACE, TANVEER,
You and SC, have my terms. I'm more than willing to answer your questions, but not before either you or SC, definitively, go on record as to exactly where you stand on these questions. It will take neither of you more than a couple of minutes to answer either yes or no, so what is the problem? Your's and SC's refusal to comply with such an easy task, can only mean that neither of you really knows what you are talking about
Please respond to those questions and then I will get to yours. In that, I asked SC first, perhaps you can persuade her to answer.
Loking forward to your reply.
-
Original Text (ar)
Total 4 results found2173
55
6147
16116
Peace upon all,
There's a rule in arabic grammar that says that the adjective/ and the object being described/ should both be either with al/ or both without it.
In the four occurences, those in red indicates that it's not the case, meaning that al-khinzir is not an adjective for lahm (lahm not having al at the begining or sould be al-lahm). The case in blue can imply that it's anadjective, but the others are not.
I hope this helps.
-
Peace Priest Bokmei,
You and SC, have my terms. I'm more than willing to answer your questions, but not before either you or SC, definitively, go on record as to exactly where you stand on these questions. It will take neither of you more than a couple of minutes to answer either yes or no, so what is the problem? Your's and SC's refusal to comply with such an easy task, can only mean that neither of you really knows what you are talking about
I knew you were full of hot air, conjecture, and bluff. Listen, if you really knew what you were talking about, you'd have absolutely no problem answering my questions.
You have my terms. I'm more than willing to answer your questions, but not before you, definitively, go on record as to exactly where you stand on these questions, as I asked you first. It will not take you more than a few minutes to answer my questions, so what is the problem? Your refusal to comply with such an easy task, can only mean that you do not really know what you are talking about.
Please respond to those questions and then I will get to yours. Looking forward to your reply.
-
Peace Someone,
Thank you for explaining the Arabic rules of grammar. That helps tremendously and clarifies a lot, and proves beyond doubt that "lahma alkhinzeerin" cannot mean "bad/dirty meat" as "alkhinzeerin" cannot be an adjective for "lahma" according to Arabic grammar. Lahma Alkhinzeerin then HAS to mean meat of pig in 2173, 55, and 16116 and because of that, it obviously means the same in 6145 too.
Thank you for your kind input. God bless.
-
PEACE, TANVEER,
I knew you were full of hot air, conjecture, and bluff. Listen, if you really knew what you were talking about, you'd have absolutely no problem answering my questions.
You have my terms. I'm more than willing to answer your questions, but not before you, definitively, go on record as to exactly where you stand on these questions, as I asked you first. It will not take you more than a few minutes to answer my questions, so what is the problem? Your refusal to comply with such an easy task, can only mean that you do not really know what you are talking about.
The burden of proof remains with you. If you wish to continue to debate this topic and prove your claims, then you have my terms.
Please respond to those questions and then I will get to yours. Looking forward to your reply.
-
PEACE, SOMEONE, and ALL,
2173 He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine...
2173 Innama harrama AAalaykumu almaytata waddama walahma alkhinzeeri...
53 Forbidden to you (for food) are dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine,
53 Hurrimat AAalaykumu almaytatu waddamu walahmu alkhinzeeri...
560 Say "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah. those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine...
560 Qul hal onabbiokum bisharrin min thalika mathoobatan AAinda Allahi man laAAanahu Allahu waghadiba AAalayhi wajaAAala minhumu alqiradata walkhanazeera...
6145 Say "I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine...
6145 Qul la ajidu feema oohiya ilayya muharraman AAala taAAimin yatAAamuhu illa an yakoona maytatan aw daman masfoohan aw lahma khinzeerin...
16115 He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine...
16115 Innama harrama AAalaykumu almaytata waddama walahma alkhinzeeri...
Thank you for your comments. While I do see your point, and I do not understand Arabic grammar, your comments have generated more questions for me.
-
Ayats 2173, 53, 560, and 16115, as you say, begin with the definite article "al". My question is, why isn't this case with 6145? This appears to be a discrepancy.
-
Given that "al" is the definite article, why, then, are none of the ayats translated as "the" swine, but as "the" flesh of swine? Is this just a huge oversight on the part of the translators, or is there a particular reason for this? I mean just how hard would it be to simply say flesh of the swine instead of repeatedly saying the flesh of swine?
-
Does the article "al" have additional definitions which may apply to these ayats?
-
I forgot to ask you, would you please copy and paste the Arabic rule you are referring to. I want to show it to some people and get their feedback, thanks.
-
Lastly, and this is burning question for me . Ayat 55 states that the food of the People of the Book, The Jews and Christian, is halal for us. Now, while do agree that the Jews, Christians, and mankind in general, must obey Al-Quran, Allah, makes no mention that the the pig was haram for them. In ayat 6146, Allah, only forbade the Jews the category of animals with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep. Now, anyone reading Al-Quran and having no knowledge of the dietary laws of the Jews, would conclude a few things
A. once Al-Quran was revealed the Jews must obey it.
B. in regard to the Jews, according to Al-Quran, Allah, never forbade them to eat swine.
C. given that the food of the Jews is halal for us and vice versa , and Allah never prohibited the flesh of swine to Jews, how, then, can it be haram for us or them? Does Allah make arbitrary laws and/or behave capriciously i.e. 2173?
D. given that the ayat reads lahma al-khinzerin, the flesh/meat of the swine is haram, and you believe this to be the actual translation, then we are permitted to eat the products made from the pigs hooves, bones, and fat/lard , as these are not flesh/meats. Do you agree? If the meat is unclean, how can the fat ]shahama] not be as well?
E. with the advent of Al-Quran, the Jews are now being told that swine is haram for them. If the swine is haram, because it is unclean/rajisa, why, then, did Allah allow it to be eaten by all of the righteous people for all those ages before Al-Quran was revealed? Did it all of a sudden just become unclean from one day to the next?
Looking forward to your reply.
-
-
Peace Priest Bokmei,
You have my terms. I'm more than willing to answer your questions, but not before you, definitively, go on record as to exactly where you stand on these questions, as I asked you first. It will not take you more than a few minutes to answer my questions, so what is the problem? Your refusal to comply with such an easy task, can only mean that you do not really know what you are talking about.
The burden of proof remains with you. If you wish to continue to debate this topic and prove your claims, then you have my terms.
If you still persist in refusing to answer my questions then that is a proof that you cannot refute my arguments. Until you answer my questions and refute my points, this discussion is over. I will not make any further posts until you answer my questions.
Please respond to my questions and then I will get to yours. Looking forward to your answers.
Until then, Au Revoir.
-
PEACE, TANVEER,
No deal. And, no, the burden of proof is on you. It is you and the others, who claim that Allah says the flesh of swine is haram. You have to prove this. I am the skeptic and skeptics don't prove other peoples assertions, they do.
You have my terms.
Peace.
-
Peace Tanveer,
Don't waste your time with PB. We asked him to respond to our posts repeatedly in the past, he did not comply...Yet we answered his questions in good faith consistently. There is no reason why we should humour his 'commands', when he doesn't care a whit about our requests. Let's discuss the points as they stand in the posts...I basically care about responding to points rather than 'talking' to him, when you do that, you are only stating the OBVIOUS anyway, time and time again.
He keeps talking about burden of proof when he doesn't realise that there are three kinds...the other two in case it escaped his knowledge
2)A evidentiary burden is an obligation that shifts between parties over the course of the hearing or trial. A party may submit evidence that the court will consider prima facie proof of some state of affairs. This creates a evidentiary burden upon the opposing party to present evidence to refute the presumption
3)A tactical burden is an obligation similar to an evidentiary burden. Presented with certain evidence, the Court has the discretion to infer a fact from it unless the opposing party can present evidence to the contrary.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
Adequate evidence can, however, shift the burden of proof to the other party.
This is why in any debate/argument between two opposing sides, you'd ideally want a fair/impartial mediator, who would see through unfair and dirty tactics.
-
Peace someone,
Thank you for posting the grammatical info. It's quite helpful in eliminating options of what it can't be.
-
PB,
I'll take a shot at your true/false quiz. Some questions are specifically addressed to SC, but I'll answer as best as I can with my own opinions
53 Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked, and the strangled (animal) and that beaten to death, and that killed by a fall and that killed by being smitten with the horn, and that which wild beasts have eaten, except what you slaughter, and what is sacrificed on stones set up (for idols) and that you divide by the arrows; that is a transgression.
- The animals restricted to eat in the above ayat, are they, by their created natures, haram to eat. Yes or no?
No. Stupid question. Its obvious that the opposing position is that the flesh of swine is haram by nature, while the other restriction refer to any animal in those conditions. When you already know this, why the moronic insistence on a Yes or No answer? That?s like asking if the US flag is Blue or Red.
- They are only haram to eat when they enter into a particualr state/condition. Am I correct?
Another stupid question. See the explanation above. What is the point of this?
The pig, being a quarduped, and Allah made all quadrupeds halal to eat, to accept your position then, is to say that the lahma of the quadruped pig, by its very created nature, is haram.
- Is this your position then that, the very created nature of the pigs flesh is unclean?
Can't speak for SC. Personally Yes. Per
If this is true, then, the flesh of the must have pig has always been, by its created nature unclean, and, if this is the case, why did Allah not make it HARAM for the Jews and ALL of those before them?
Was the pig or any part of it, before the revealing of Al-Quran, haram to eat?
Ok. Here is where I am confused. Are you schizophrenic or just plain hypocritical? Did you read my post? You know the one in which I quoted your post ? in which you stated that 6145 applies to all humanity including Jews?
The answer is Yes. Per
- The only things forbidden to them, and only because of their transgressions and not because the animal was by nature unclean, are quadrupeds with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep.
Am I correct, yes or no.
No.
Explain to me where your Only came from. And please review my comment above regarding hypocricy and schizophrenia.
51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...
- Does the above ayat, mention anything about any part of a quadruped not being allowed? Yes or no?
No.
- The ayat says...quadrupeds and not quadruped. Am I correct?
Yes
- As you said, and I just want to be certain of your position here, no quadruped, as an entirety, is haram for consumption? Is this your position?
Can't speak for SC. Personally Yes.
A. 51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...
B. SC Quadrupeds are lawful except that which is recited to you. Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions. The restrictions specify what is in particular prohibited.
Ayat 51 says nothing about "except" meaning restrictions on quadrupeds. Am I correct?
No. What part of "The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except ..." didn't you understand?.
- You wrote "Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions".
Does ayat 51 say what is in the bold and italics?
No. Hey this kinda reminds me of your mysterious "only" from
- You said "No, we know what ayat 51 means". If this is true, what are the disallowed quadrupeds? Do you know?
Yes. Refer to and
- Allah, in ayat 560, makes no mention that khinzeerin, is being used as a similitude/figuratively. Am I correct?
Yes.
- Your claiming that khinzeerin in ayat 560 is figurative, is simply your opinion. Am I correct?
Can't speak for SC. Personally I think 560 is literal.
- Khanaza, has two distinct meanings pig and something which looks bad. Am I correct?
Yes. Assuming the one dictionary you quoted is accurate. But to borrow a phrase ... it's "simply your opinion" that the adjective is applicable ... actually given the usage of "Al" eliminates the possibility of it being an adjective ... I guess you can contest the one instance where it doesn't use "Al".
- Do you know for a certainty that, swine, in ayat 53, can only mean pig flesh literally?
Yes. I am no more, and no less certain about my "simple opinion" as you are about your "simple opinion". Stupid question. Don?t try holding people to a standard that you can?t maintain for yourself ... this time just review hypocricy.
- Did Allah make any quadruped, by its created nature unclean, hence, haram to eat?
Moronic question considering the one that follows.
- Did Allah make any PART of a quadruped, by its created nature, unclean, hence, haram to eat? Yes or no.
Yes. Refer to {5003] and
- When Allah made an entire category of animals haram and parts of others haram, was it because the animals by nature were unclean/unfit for human consumption or was it done to punish a people? Is this correct?
WTFO!!! I?d be fascinated if you would show me how to answer this one with a Yes or No
-
THOR,
Thank you for the reply. Now, I hope Tanveer and SC, will reply as well. Perhaps your response will encourage them. We'll see.
Btw, no need for the comments like these
Are you schizophrenic or just plain hypocritical?
Stupid question...
Moronic question?
This is a debate and I know people can get "edgy", however, there is no need for these types of comments. Fair enough? Good deal.
PB,
I'll take a shot at your true/false quiz. Some questions are specifically addressed to SC, but I'll answer as best as I can with my own opinions
53 Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked, and the strangled (animal) and that beaten to death, and that killed by a fall and that killed by being smitten with the horn, and that which wild beasts have eaten, except what you slaughter, and what is sacrificed on stones set up (for idols) and that you divide by the arrows; that is a transgression.
- The animals restricted to eat in the above ayat, are they, by their created natures, haram to eat. Yes or no?
No. Stupid question. Its obvious that the opposing position is that the flesh of swine is haram by nature, while the other restriction refer to any animal in those conditions. When you already know this, why the moronic insistence on a Yes or No answer? That?s like asking if the US flag is Blue or Red.
- They are only haram to eat when they enter into a particualr state/condition. Am I correct?
Another stupid question. See the explanation above. What is the point of this?
The pig, being a quarduped, and Allah made all quadrupeds halal to eat, to accept your position then, is to say that the lahma of the quadruped pig, by its very created nature, is haram.
- Is this your position then that, the very created nature of the pigs flesh is unclean?
Can't speak for SC. Personally Yes. Per
If this is true, then, the flesh of the must have pig has always been, by its created nature unclean, and, if this is the case, why did Allah not make it HARAM for the Jews and ALL of those before them?
Was the pig or any part of it, before the revealing of Al-Quran, haram to eat?
Ok. Here is where I am confused. Are you schizophrenic or just plain hypocritical? Did you read my post? You know the one in which I quoted your post ? in which you stated that 6145 applies to all humanity including Jews?
The answer is Yes. Per
- The only things forbidden to them, and only because of their transgressions and not because the animal was by nature unclean, are quadrupeds with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep.
Am I correct, yes or no.
No.
Explain to me where your Only came from. And please review my comment above regarding hypocricy and schizophrenia.
51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...
- Does the above ayat, mention anything about any part of a quadruped not being allowed? Yes or no?
No.
- The ayat says...quadrupeds and not quadruped. Am I correct?
Yes
- As you said, and I just want to be certain of your position here, no quadruped, as an entirety, is haram for consumption? Is this your position?
Can't speak for SC. Personally Yes.
A. 51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...
B. SC Quadrupeds are lawful except that which is recited to you. Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions. The restrictions specify what is in particular prohibited.
Ayat 51 says nothing about "except" meaning restrictions on quadrupeds. Am I correct?
No. What part of "The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except ..." didn't you understand?.
- You wrote "Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions".
Does ayat 51 say what is in the bold and italics?
No. Hey this kinda reminds me of your mysterious "only" from
- You said "No, we know what ayat 51 means". If this is true, what are the disallowed quadrupeds? Do you know?
Yes. Refer to and
- Allah, in ayat 560, makes no mention that khinzeerin, is being used as a similitude/figuratively. Am I correct?
Yes.
- Your claiming that khinzeerin in ayat 560 is figurative, is simply your opinion. Am I correct?
Can't speak for SC. Personally I think 560 is literal.
- Khanaza, has two distinct meanings pig and something which looks bad. Am I correct?
Yes. Assuming the one dictionary you quoted is accurate. But to borrow a phrase ... it's "simply your opinion" that the adjective is applicable ... actually given the usage of "Al" eliminates the possibility of it being an adjective ... I guess you can contest the one instance where it doesn't use "Al".
- Do you know for a certainty that, swine, in ayat 53, can only mean pig flesh literally?
Yes. I am no more, and no less certain about my "simple opinion" as you are about your "simple opinion". Stupid question. Don?t try holding people to a standard that you can?t maintain for yourself ... this time just review hypocricy.
- Did Allah make any quadruped, by its created nature unclean, hence, haram to eat?
Moronic question considering the one that follows.
- Did Allah make any PART of a quadruped, by its created nature, unclean, hence, haram to eat? Yes or no.
Yes. Refer to {5003] and
- When Allah made an entire category of animals haram and parts of others haram, was it because the animals by nature were unclean/unfit for human consumption or was it done to punish a people? Is this correct?
WTFO!!! I?d be fascinated if you would show me how to answer this one with a Yes or No
-
PB,
edgy? ... damn ... I was shooting for witty and blithe ...
regarding my comments ... i think they are very pertinent ... its called Calling a Spade a Spade ...
you must admit your flip-flopping on the logical argument of whether Jews are included in or not is ... worrisome ... if hypocricy or schizophrenia don't explain this ... what is the reason behind your change of stance? .... how does the mysterious "only" flit in and out of your arguments like a masked crusader? ...
And about the stupid questions ... if ever I ask you "Is the US flag Blue or Red?" ... please ... I beseech you ... tell me I'm being a moron ... I won't take it personally ... honest ...
So ... here we are again ... someone has actually taken the time to address your issues ...
here's a thought ... why don't you try it now? ... I hear thats what they do in a debate ...
but where to start? ... you've got pages of unanswered stuff from Tanveer and SC ....
if I may be so bold ... start with the logical argument on Jews ... I'm particularly fond of that ...
Eagerly awaiting your reply.
Best Regards,
Thor
-
Peace Thor,
you must admit your flip-flopping on the logical argument of whether Jews are included in or not is ... worrisome ... if hypocricy or schizophrenia don't explain this ... what is the reason behind your change of stance? .... how does the mysterious "only" flit in and out of your arguments like a masked crusader? ...
I wonder about this too...
And about the stupid questions ... if ever I ask you "Is the US flag Blue or Red?" ... please ... I beseech you ... tell me I'm being a moron ... I won't take it personally ... honest ...
lol The 15 questions are based on the same principle as cheating on an exam by making up your own questions...beats having to answer honest questions...
-
THOR,
To persist in referring to me as you do is offensive and cowardly. Would you, if we were face to face, persist in addressing me in fashion that I asked you not to? Would you really do that? If not, then, don't it from behind the fence of cyber-space, it's cowardly. Be a man and stop, cool?
Anyway, what, exactly, have I flipped-flopped on? Please post it and make your case.
if I may be so bold ... start with the logical argument on Jews ... I'm particularly fond of that ...
What didn't you grasp?
I'm still waiting for Tanveer and SC, to go on record with their positions. Yes or no answers...leaves no doubt as to where one stands. They are afraid to go on record, because they lack certainty in what they claim they know, hence, they are really following opinion*, and this is why they will not answer those questions. How long do you think it will take them to answer those questions...two to three minutes? When they answer I will answer their questions post haste. As I said, the burden of proof is on them not me.
I'm also waiting for Someone, to answer my reply to him. He makes an interesting point, however, there are questions which need to be resolved, for example, why he didn't include ayat 6145 in the ayats he presented. There is no "al" preceding khinzerin ayat 6145...why?...what happened to the Arabic rule of grammar, why is it suspended in this ayat?
Looking forward to your reply.
- http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4013
-
To persist in referring to me as you do is offensive and cowardly. Would you, if we were face to face, persist in addressing me in fashion that I asked you not to? Would you really do that? If not, then, don't it from behind the fence of cyber-space, it's cowardly. Be a man and stop, cool?
PB .. for all I know ... u are a sumo wrestler ... if such were the case and we were in an argument .. and you told me to stop picking on you ... I would certainly consider the possibilty that you might beat me into a pulp if I didn't ...
but guess what? ... we are in cyber space ... the great equalizer ... where one can not use intimidation or other forms of coercion to win an argument ... where the simple and straight forward way to win an argument is to counter your opponents points ... so be a man and stop whinning ... answer the questions ...
Anyway, what, exactly, have I flipped-flopped on? Please post it and make your case.
Quote
if I may be so bold ... start with the logical argument on Jews ... I'm particularly fond of that ...What didn't you grasp?
I don't grasp how you flip flop between
- The Jews are included in all mankind and the restrictions in do apply to them
AND
- The Jews are not included in all mankind and the restrictions in do not apply to them
I can't be clearer than that.
Yes or no answers...leaves no doubt as to where one stands.
except when it is impossible to answer with a Yes or No ... haven't we already gone over this?
When they answer I will answer their questions post haste.
Hey ... since I did answer the questions ... can I get a response next time? ... cool?