Is Swine Hallal
-
Peace Danish,
When you are discussing scientific facts, I would like to request you and urge you not to use scientifically inaccurate statements and mislead others. That can mean that either you do not have the accurate knowledge, or you are careless, or you are purposely/knowingly making those kind of statements.
Just to give our friend Tanveer and others some statistics, Cirrhosis is a disease of the liver caused mainly by alcohol consumption, hepatitis, exposure to toxins/drugs and other inherited viral metabolic dysfunctions
It should read "inherited metabolic dysfunctions", and not "inherited VIRAL metabolic dysfunctions".
Also the word "statistics" is wrongly used in your statement quoted above. I do not see any "statistics" in your entire post, let alone that statement.
Also a disease can be mainly caused by some things does not mean other things cannot cause it. For example blocked bile ducts can also cause cirrhosis (biliary cirrhosis).
and has nothing to do with specifically pig?s meat.
In my last post, I showed you the conclusions of scientific studies that prove that there is a significant (meaning statistically significant) causal correlation between cirrhosis mortality and pork consumption. I gave a list of references at the end, from scientific journals. Please take a course in statistics to understand what statistical significance means, and please read up the referenced articles in those scientific journals, before making a careless and inaccurate statement.
Any animal (including humans) can be infected by Cirrhosis.
I never said anything about infections in my post. Infections can cause cirrhosis but it is scientifically and medically completely inaccurate to say "infected by cirrhosis". One can be infected with an organism that can cause cirrhosis but one cannot be infected BY CIRRHOSIS. That is hilarious.
Liver cancers, Sclerosis and vascular diseases has nothing to do with pig?s meat specifically either.
The studies I quoted clearly prove otherwise. If you can reject the conclusion of scientific studies just like that without offering any scientific study of your own, or without quoting a scientific study that proves otherwise, then I can easily see from that how you can mistranslate the word of The God according to your own whims, without any regard to the grammatical rules and the context.
Majority of the Western countries and many Eastern as well, who consume pig?s meat (pork, ham, bacon, ribs, etc.) from childhood up, yet never heard nor any scientific proofs of children/adults getting sick or dying because of eating pig?s meat.
That again shows your ignorance. Look up the referenced articles in the scientific journals that I quoted from. You will find the actual data, including the number of people who died due to cirrhosis (cirrhosis mortality), which was scientifically correlated to eating pork (was statistically significant). If people have not heard of the scientific proof, does not mean that there is no scientific proof.
As a matter of fact, people have gotten seriously ill and/or died due to eating any infectious meat (the well-known case of cow?s meat in England is a good example). Anything that is edible (animals, fruits, vegetables, dough, dry-fruits, etc.), can be infectious by whatever cause, or eaten because of our own irresponsibilities and misjudgments, is a different matter and becomes a frivolous case to blame it specifically on pigs.
Once again, I repeat, that I never said anything about infections in my post. Any meat can be infected but that does not mean it is bad by nature. I showed you conclusions of scientific studies that show a scientific causal correlation between some diseases and pork consumption, showing that pork is intrinsically bad for the human body. That has nothing to do with any infection.
Most dangerous snakes, crustaceans and other animals that carry within them poisonous substances that can kill a human instantly, yet people hunt, cook and eat them with pleasure.
So then they are not bad by nature, but pig meat is, for scientific studies have shown that pork consumption can kill people by cirrhosis and liver cancer.
On one occasion when some of my friends got together, a 45 year old vegetarian friend of mine had his first bite on a chicken. Finding the chicken meat delicious, he ate more. We found out that he was the only one who had gotten sick the next day for a couple more days.
What you are presenting is anecdotal data and NOT scientific data. It is well known in the medical field that a group of people can eat bad meat or infected meat and not all will have symptoms of food poisoning or infection and get sick. Even if one gets sick, the symptoms or sickness could be mild or severe. It all depends on how strong one's immune system is, and the dose/quantity of infectious or bad meat ingested. Also only a portion of the chicken meat could be bad or infected, and whoever eats that part may get sick and others who ate from the same chicken piece will not get sick.
On the contrary, if the chicken was infected, then perhaps we all would have been affected and my vegetarian friend in a more dreadful situation.
Please see my comments above.
The same sort of scenario is true for the first timers who drink alcoholic beverages, smoke cigarettes and so forth, but eventually get used to it, not because that these are any good.
They might eventually get used to it but it will still kill some of them or cause various diseases. Getting used to something bad does not mean one will not get sick from it.
As per my current understanding, there?s no specific animal mentioned by name that is forbidden. Blood is not an animal, and along with meat, animals, fruits, vegetables, etc., all are generalized terms and not specific to any given name as such. We must carefully study, analyze and understand the contextual nature of all verses put together in which it speaks and to reason coherently, consistently and naturally as they occur. Therefore, why single out the word khinzeer to mean specifically a named animal pig rather that to deduce its meaning and usage as applied to all meat being generalized as ?ill-seeming?, which is also understood coherently and consistently in all other verses. Naturally then, in verse 560, humans don?t get transformed into pigs but are generalized to mean ?ill-seeming? beings/humans. Hence, insofar, I stand affirmative of all verses quoted earlier that contain the word khanzeer
The word "yad" used in Qur'aan means "hand" in one place and means "resources" in another place, and when used for The God, it is used metaphorically
373 Say "The bounty is in God's hand, He gives it to whom He chooses, and God is Encompassing, Knowledgeable."
567 And the Jews said "The hand of God is tied-down!"
4811 Those who pledge allegiance to you, are in-fact pledging allegiance to God; God's hand is above their hands.
5729 So that the followers of the Scripture should know that they have no power over God's grace, and that all grace is in God's hand.Does The God have physical hands ??
- Lion is an animal
- You can turn into an animal, if you do not use your ability to reason
In these 2 sentences, the same word "animal" is used. The reader, however, can easily discern that in the first sentence, "animal" means a LITERAL animal, but in the 2nd sentence, "animal" is used METAPHORICALLY/FIGURATIVELY.
Same with the usage of "khinzeerin" in Qur'aan.
In 6145 the phrase "lahma khinzeerin" is used. According to rules of Arabic grammar, as explained by Someone and others multiple times, the way this phrase is written, "khinzeerin" in "lahma khinzeerin" cannot be an adjective for "lahma", but has to be a noun. So it cannot mean "illseeming meat" according to rules of Arabic grammar but has to mean meat of pig.
For "khinzeer" to be an adjective of "lahma" the phrase has to be as follows
- "allahma alkhinzeerin" (both words have "al" before them)
OR
- "lahmoun khinzeeroun" or "lahmou khinzeerou" (both words have the same ending "oun" or "ou")
In "lahma khinzeerin" as used in 6145, neither of these rules is satisfied. Both words do not have "al" at the beginning and both words do not have the same ending.
Also according to context, "lahma khinzeerin" is followed by "rijsun" which clearly is an adjective for "lahma khinzeerin". If in this phrase "khinzeerin" is an adjective of "lahma", then having another adjective "rijsun" immediately following it, and meaning the same is redundant.
It is just like saying
My black cat is black. OR
My black cat is dark coloured.Does not make sense.
Proper would be "my cat is black", or "I have a black cat".
In 560 "khanazeer" is either literal or metaphorical. I have not made up my mind about that yet. The God does have the power to transform a human into a literal pig, just like He transformed a stick into a snake. On the other hand, the figurative meaning fits as well. I will need to do more research on that. The word "yad" in Qur'aan does not always mean "physical hand" as I have already mentioned above. Similarly "khinzeer" does not always have to mean the same everywhere. Its meaning will depend on the rules of Arabic grammar and the context.
Usually, the literal meaning is applied first to a word in an ayat, and if it fits then the literal meaning is taken, but if after applying the literal meaning it does not make sense, then the figurative meaning is taken. In addition to that, the rules of Arabic grammar have to be followed, and in 6145 according to the rules of Arabic grammar, and context, "lahma khinzeerin" clearly means "meat of pig" and makes perfect sense.
Regards,
Tanveer
-
SC,
You didn't respond to the following, please do
Main Entry FLESH the soft parts of the body of an animal and especially of a vertebrate; especially the parts composed chiefly of skeletal muscle as distinguished from visceral structures, bone, and integuments a fleshy plant part used as food the fleshy part of a fruit.
Main Entry VISCERAL/VISCUS an internal organ of the body; especially one (as the heart, liver, or intestine) located in the great cavity of the trunk proper.
Hmmm...lahma/flesh, doesn't necessarily have to pertain to meat, but can pertain to plants, vegetables, and fruits as well. According to the above definitions, viscera, is NOT flesh, hence, the liver, the intestines and kidneys, along with bone and fat, are all halal. What is your reply to this?
-
PEACE, TANVEER,
Hmmm...thought you pulled a Crater there for minute. wink
TANVEER So then they are not bad by nature, but pig meat is, for scientific studies have shown that pork consumption can kill people by cirrhosis and liver cancer.
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.
If the pig, a clawless quadruped, was/is bad/fasiqun/rijisun by nature, as you claim, why, then, were the Jews, prior to Al-Quran and, per ayat 6146, allowed to eat it?
I'm still waiting for you to answer this question.
-
Peace Danish,
As per my current understanding, there?s no specific animal mentioned by name that is forbidden. Blood is not an animal, and along with meat, animals, fruits, vegetables, etc., all are generalized terms and not specific to any given name as such. We must carefully study, analyze and understand the contextual nature of all verses put together in which it speaks and to reason coherently, consistently and naturally as they occur. Therefore, why single out the word khinzeer to mean specifically a named animal pig rather that to deduce its meaning and usage as applied to all meat being generalized as ?ill-seeming?, which is also understood coherently and consistently in all other verses. Naturally then, in verse 560, humans don?t get transformed into pigs but are generalized to mean ?ill-seeming? beings/humans.
In your understanding, you think that because everything else is NOT named in particular, khinzeerin must NOT be the name of an animal as well? Okay.
After carefully studying, analyzing and understanding the contextual nature of all verses put together, reasoning coherently, consistenly and naturally, noticing grammar, definitions, sentence structure and research...it is the viable conclusion, in my understanding, that pig works fine. Ill seeming does NOT work for reasons stated previously. This is my understanding.
Everyone has a right to choose whatever understanding makes the most sense to them after looking at everything. After all, it is OUR responsibility to explain why we chose what we did...not anyone else's.
Is there anything wrong with the any of the above verses when read coherrently whilst keeping the pig aside, at least for now?
I would add, normally, one would try to work out what is wrong with pig before choosing another understanding. I have explained what is wrong in my previous posts while putting aside pig. I understand if you are pressed for time, we all are. Therefore, please forgive me for not repeating.
-
SC,
Don't forget to respond to the following posts
-
Posted Sat Sep 03, 2005 550 pm
-
Posted Sat Sep 03, 2005 928 pm
-
-
Peace all,
Meat in scientific terms is muscle. It could be smooth muscle or skeletal musle or cardiac muscle, but they are all muscle and hence included in meat. I would recommend you to open up a text book on Histology and verify that.
Having said that, walls of intestines are full of smooth muscle and thus meat includes intestines. Liver and kidneys are RICHLY supplied with blood vessels (including capillaries). Walls of blood vessels are full of smooth muscle, so liver and kidneys do contain a LARGE portion of meat, and it is almost impossible to separate the meat from the small non-meat portion of liver and kidneys, for the practical purposes of eating.
So lahma khinzeerin includes ALL muscle of pig, be it smooth muscle, skeletal muscle, or cardiac muscle.
-
PB,
I would like you to address your inconsistent arguments, before I decide to respond to your repeated questions.
- I'm not saying now nor have I ever said that, the Jews didn't have other restrictions placed on them. What I've been saying is that, if you would pay attention to Al-Quran and what I'm saying, Allah, never made haram/unlawful to Jews any animal or animal part, based on the notion that a particular animal or its part, by its created nature, was fasiqun/rijisun. Yet, you and Tanveer, want to declare that, Allah, made the flesh of the pig, by nature/its creation, fisiqun and rijisun. That is really bold.
Here take a look
According to Al-Quran, the Jews were only forbidden to eat animals with claws and the fat ox oxen and sheep, except, what adhered to the bones.
Ayat 6146 tells us EXACTLY what Allah forbade the Jews, that is all.
Now, given that 6146 does not mention khinzerin as one of the haram foods of the Jews, swine, then, it was never made haram for the Jews by Allah.
Just a taste of the many times you have said 6146 were the ONLY restrictions on the Jews.
- Irrespective of whatever else Allah made haram for the Jews for the Jews, we do know the He made the following animals and animal part, haram for them
Why don't YOU tell me how in the WORLD do you know what ELSE Allah made haram for the Jews when you say 6146 are the ONLY restrictions. Please explain this inconsistency.
Was 6146 the ONLY restrictions on the Jews? Yes OR No?
What do you have to say to your INCONSISTENCY?
Are you now claiming that, blood, is by nature, "bad/fisiqun/rijisun"? Is this truly your position?? Where do you get this from? Without blood, could you live?! Allah, has made blood haram to eat or even come into contact with without protection, because it can cause, though, not all of the time, sickness due its propensity to become infected. I hope you will have the intellectual maturity/honesty and rescind your claim that blood, by its very nature, is bad/fisiqun/rjisun. Are blood transfusions...haram?
What rants and exaggerations to MY point that blood is by nature haram TO EAT when it is OBVIOUS what that means?!!! Blood is by nature haram to eat BECAUSE IT IS NOT DEPENDENT ON IT ENTERING ANY STATE. Does this GET THROUGH or do I have to put it in YES OR NO like you finally got MY POINT regarding RESTRICTIONS?!? ALLAH has made BLOOD HARAM TO EAT. It is HARAM ALL THE TIME TO EAT roll Pig meat is fine to the pig. Blood is fine to the animal. When YOU want to eat it is when it's restricted. It's not going to start exploding fireworks on its own NOW IS IT? Do you EAT...blood transfusions?!? I just hope you have any sort of intellect OR maturity. Honesty is probably asking too much of you.
-
Peace Tanveer,
Your last post is very interesting, I did not know that...Thanks for the info.
-
If the pig, a clawless quadruped, was/is bad/fasiqun/rijisun by nature, as you claim, why, then, were the Jews, prior to Al-Quran and, per ayat 6146, allowed to eat it?
I'm still waiting for you to answer this question.
Pig meat was never allowed to Jews for eating as per 6145, because 6145 merely states a law for mankind without any chronology, and mankind includes Jews. Keep in mind that the Koran authenticates previous scriptures and supercedes it. So 6145 authenticates the restricted foods as mentioned in previous scriptures too.
Tanveermd has answered this multiple times in his different posts. For example
- FORBIDDEN FOOD FOR MANKIND
Given that 6145 lists food made haram for mankind, and that mankind includes Jews, "already dead", blood, "lahma khinzeerin", and "what is dedicated to other than Allah" is haram for Jews also.
6145 just factually states what is haram for mankind, including jews. There is no chronology in that statement. 6145 nowhere says "from this day onwards.......".
Qur'aan authenticates the previous scriptures
241 And believe in what I have sent down, authenticating what is already with you, and do not be the first to disbelieve in it! And do not purchase with My verses a cheap gain, and of Me you shall be aware.
297 Say "Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel, then know that he has sent it down into your heart by God's permission, authenticating what is already present, and a guide and good news for the believers."
33 He sent down to you the Scripture with truth, authenticating what is present with it; and He sent down the Torah and the Injeel.
Allah also clearly says that Qur'aan in addition to authenticating the previous scriptures, supersedes them also
551 And We have sent down to you the Scripture with truth, authenticating what is present of the Scripture and superseding it. So judge between them by what God has sent down, and do not follow their desires from what has come to you of the truth.
So when an ayat gives a factual information, like forbidden foods for mankind, it is authenticating what was in the previous scriptures, and superseding it. Factual statement about forbidden food in Qur'aan, therefore, means that the forbidden categories of food have been forbidden for mankind, throughout history. The only way you can say that those four categories of food were not forbidden for Jews before revelation of Qur'aan, is if there is another ayat in Qur'aan that says that explicitly.
Show me the ayat in Qur'aan that says that Allah DID NOT forbid to the Jews what is already dead, blood, lahma khinzeerin, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah".
This clearly establishes that the following four categories of food is forbidden for ENTIRE MANKIND, INCLUDING JEWS, and that restriction has ALWAYS been there
- Already dead
- Blood
- Lahma khinzeerin
- What is dedicated to other than Allah
Nothing can change that.
You yourself agreed to that in one of your previous posts, as brother Thor has mentioned
Priest Bokmei wrote
O.k., let me try it from this angle. You will agree that Al-Quran, per ayat 2185, was sent to all of mankind for guidance; there is no other book or books for mankinds guidance. Included in mankind are the Jews. I'm certain that you also agree with that. Now, although ayat 6147 does not mention the Jews specifically, ayat 6147 does mention what is haram for mankind--the Jews included, thus, the things made haram in ayat 6147 are haram for the Jews as well. I'm certain you must agree with this also. Also keep in mind that, it would be very cumbersome to list all that is halal in Al-Quran, hence, Allah, simply names what is haram and what is not haram is halal. With this in mind then there is no contradiction between ayats 6146-7 and 148 at all.and then a few posts later you repeatedly say
Priest Bokmei wrote
the Jews, were never forbidden, by Allah anyway, to eat it.PB, YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF. By saying that lahma khinzeerin is halal for Jews, and not forbidden for them, you are contradicting 6145 and YOURSELF (see the underlined portion of your statement above).
- ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR JEWS
6146 is a continuation of 6145, that specifies ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS of food, placed on Jews because of punishment for their rebellion.
The list of forbidden food for Jews, before revelation of Qur'aan, therefore, would be as follows per 6145 and 6146
- Already dead
- Blood
- Lahma khinzeerin
- What is dedicated to other than Allah
- All that have claws
- Fat of cattle and sheep except what is attached to back, entrails, or mixed with bone.
-
PLATINUM,
PBM If the pig, a clawless quadruped, was/is bad/fasiqun/rijisun by nature, as you claim, why, then, were the Jews, prior to Al-Quran and, per ayat 6146, allowed to eat it?
6145 Say I do not find in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden for an eater to eat of except that it be what has died of itself, or blood poured forth, or flesh of swine-- for that surely is unclean-- or that which is a transgression, other than (the name of) Allah having been invoked on it; but whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring nor exceeding the limit, then surely your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.
646 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.
PLATINUM Pig meat was never allowed to Jews for eating as per 6145, because 6145 merely states a law for mankind without any chronology, and mankind includes Jews. Keep in mind that the Koran authenticates previous scriptures and supercedes it. So 6145 authenticates the restricted foods as mentioned in previous scriptures too.
No chronology?! Doesn't the word "made" refer to the past? Let me ask you a question. Did the Law of Moses come before or after Al-Quran? Hopefully, you will answer before and, if you do, then this shows a chronology of events ( the italicized part above shows chronology). Allah, per ayat 6146, tell us in part what Allah made haram for the Jews, relative to animals, in their Law....which precedes Al-Quran. The pig, is not a clawed animal.
Neither you, Savage or Tanveer, have made your case.
-
SC,
I would like you to address your inconsistent arguments, before I decide to respond to your repeated questions.
At a later date. Right now, we have much more pertinent and pressing issues to deal with. Answer the following posts or simply concede that you cannot defend your assertion that lahma khinzerin means the flesh of pigs.
-
Posted Sat Sep 03, 2005 550 pm
-
Posted Sat Sep 03, 2005 928 pm
What rants and exaggerations to MY point that blood is by nature haram TO EAT when it is OBVIOUS what that means?!!! Blood is by nature haram to eat BECAUSE IT IS NOT DEPENDENT ON IT ENTERING ANY STATE. Does this GET THROUGH or do I have to put it in YES OR NO like you finally got MY POINT regarding RESTRICTIONS?!? ALLAH has made BLOOD HARAM TO EAT.
Relax, calm down.
-
Btw, just why is blood haram to eat?
-
Stating that blood is haram to eat, does not make blood, by nature, bad/fasiqun/rijisun which is what you said previously, to wit
-
Tell you what, go to Al-Quran, and tell us what thing, by nature, Allah created bad/fasiqun/rijisun, thanks. The following ayat contradicts your's and Tanveer's notion of some things being created as "bad";
327 He Who has made everything which He has created most good
SAVAGE C Yes, what is BOLD is, Allah did make BLOOD a part of an animal restricted for us that is created BAD, it's NOT dependent on entering any state. Address this point. How do you explain it?!?
But it is clear that you have rescinded that comment. D
It is HARAM ALL THE TIME TO EAT Pig meat is fine to the pig. Blood is fine to the animal. When YOU want to eat it is when it's restricted. It's not going to start exploding fireworks on its own NOW IS IT? Do you EAT...blood transfusions?!? I just hope you have any sort of intellect OR maturity. Honesty is probably asking too much of you.
Whether you eat blood or blood or take it directly into the blood stream via transfusion, the end result is the same....blood is still in the blood stream. I want to see you refute that. lol
-
-
I would like you to address your inconsistent arguments, before I decide to respond to your repeated questions.
At a later date.
roll Right. This is the same guy who wants us to accept HIS argument full of inconsistencies NOW.
Right now, we have much more pertinent and pressing issues to deal with.
Right NOW we have YOUR pertinent and pressing inconsistency issues to deal with as that's what your argument is BASED on.
Answer the following posts or simply concede that you cannot defend your assertion that lahma khinzerin means the flesh of pigs.
Answer the refutations posted to YOU time and time again OR simply concede that you cannot defend your assertion that lahma khinzerin is not the flesh of pigs.
-
SC,
LOL! Yup, here we go again, rant, rave, bluff, then duck, cut and run. You don't have anything, SC and you know it. What's more you've lost this debate, because you can no longer field a defense for you misunsderstanding of lahma khinzerin. You will not answer those posts for the same reason reason that you wouldn't answer the 15 questions I asked you to, because to do so, would further expose your error. D
You have not practiced honesty in this debate. Those who refuse to practice honesty only continue to mislead themselves for certain and others maybe.
-
Peace Nadia,
A small but pertinent point Blood transfusion is never given for the heck of it, or as a daily routine. It is always given in a state of emergency, because of severe anemia that is life threatening. So it would come under "forced out of need", according to 2173, therefore not being haram.
2173 He has only forbidden for you what is already dead, and the blood, and the meat of pig, and what was dedicated to other than God. Whoever finds himself forced out of need and without disobedience or animosity, then there is no sin upon him. God is Forgiving, Merciful.
Regards,
Tanveer
-
PB,
Yes, what is BOLD is, Allah did make BLOOD a part of an animal restricted for us that is created BAD, it's NOT dependent on entering any state. Address this point. How do you explain it?!?
It is clear that we are talking about dietary restrictions is it NOT? What food you EAT? That is why the sentence is included in the above that is underlined and bolded, it means by nature bad/haram to EAT as it is NOT dependent on entering any state. I'm sorry if this sentence confused you.
Whether you eat blood or blood or take it directly into the blood stream via transfusion, the end result is the same....blood is still in the blood stream. I want to see you refute that.
Is this another example of shooting yourself in the foot? Are you saying that we should NOT have blood transfusions because in reality we are EATING BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS? Are blood transfusions DONE IN TIMES OF NECESSITY? Or whenever YOU feel like it? roll
LOL! Yup, here we go again, rant and rave, then duck, cut and run. You don't have anything, SC and you know it. What's more you've lost this debate, because you can no longer field a defense for you misunsderstanding of lahma khinzerin. You will not answer those posts for the same reason reason that you wouldn't answer the 15 questions I asked you to, because to do so, would further expose your error.
You have honest practiced honesty in this debate. Those who refuse to practice honesty only continue to mislead themselves for certain and others maybe.
And here we have another example of PB's periodic morale boosting events. The reader can easily discern for themselves the list of questions and refutations that have been evaded by PB. It is truly an impressive array. Why don't you address your glaring INCONSISTENCY now that you have had your rants off your chest?
-
Peace Tanveer,
We posted at the same time, I think the same...
-
Peace Platinum,
Thank you for your comments. It is obvious that 6145 has NO CHRONOLOGY whatsoever.
Please read all the posts under this thread and it will become obvious to you, if it not already is, that me and Nadia have refuted ALL of PB's points multiple times. He has been eluding and evading ALL the questions put forth to him multiple times by me and Nadia, and has refused to answer them despite multiple, repeated requests, because that would expose his flawed and faulty logic and his erroneous understanding and position. That is a clear indication of disrespect, discourteousness, and dishonesty and proves the untenability of his arguments.
Look forward to hearing more from you in this forum,
Regards,
Tanveer
-
SC,
I'm still waiting for your response to the following. What's the matter...pig got your tongue again? Please address the issue, thanks.
-
Posted Sat Sep 03, 2005 550 pm
-
Posted Sat Sep 03, 2005 928 pm
If the claw don't fit...you must acquit. lol
-
-
PB,
I'm still waiting for your response to the following. What's the matter...pig got your tongue again? Please address the issue, thanks.
Har de har har...take a course in humour while you are responding to YOUR glaring INCONSISTENCIES that I asked YOU to address BEFORE you asked me jack.
Posted Fri Sep 02, 2005 319 pm
-
Peace Platinum,
Thank you for your comments. It is obvious that 6145 has NO CHRONOLOGY whatsoever.
Please read all the posts under this thread and it will become obvious to you, if it not already is, that me and Nadia have refuted ALL of PB's points multiple times. He has been eluding and evading ALL the questions put forth to him multiple times by me and Nadia, and has refused to answer them despite multiple, repeated requests, because that would expose his flawed and faulty logic and his erroneous understanding and position. That is a clear indication of disrespect, discourteousness, and dishonesty and proves the untenability of his arguments.
Look forward to hearing more from you in this forum,
Regards,
Tanveer
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.
Oh, so when Allah says..."made" in ayat 6146, He wasn't referring to something which He had prior to Al-Quran, imposed on the the Jews for their transgression, is this your position? So, is it also your position that, the Jews, in addition to not being allowed to eat what is listed in ayats 2173 and 53, they cannot eat animals with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep as well? Is this your's, SC's, and Platinum's position?