Is Swine Hallal
-
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?
-
It is obvious that 6145 has NO CHRONOLOGY whatsoever.
-
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
LOL Rant, rave, bluff, then duck, cut and run. This your m.o.; you're finished, Savage. I let you get away with not answering those 15 questions, but not this time. Your refusal to answer just establishes that you cannot defend your assertion and, rather than simply admit that, you prefer to change the subject, bluff, stall, deflect, sashay around, duck, run, rant, rave, etc. etc. etc. You can't learn anything behaving like that. Get honest and answer post haste.
If the claw don't fit...you must acquit. lol
-
PEACE, DANISH,
You've made it quite clear why khinzerin isn't the animal pig. Really clear and coherent post.
I would like your analysis of the following
Ayats 55, 6146, and 16118, make it obvious why khinzerin cannot mean the animal pig.
Ayat 6146 makes clear that the ONLY animals, either in their entirety or some part, which was made haram to Jews to eat, were the class of animals with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep. This was not done because the foods were fasiqun/rijisun by nature, but because it was a punishment. Ayat 16118 makes it clear that, the things mentioned to the Messenger ( and us) as being made haram for the Jews, specifically to eat, prior to the revelation Al-Quran, are mentioned in ayat 6146. With this in mind then, based on Al-Quran only and alone, it is clear that the Jews were not forbidden to eat swine either as a whole or any particular part. Given the aforementioned, the pig was never haram for the Jews, hence, per ayat 55, their food must be halal for us, otherwise, we run into contradicts all over the place.
Let me know what you think.
Peace.
If the claw don't fit...you must acquit.
-
Peace upon everyone,
I agree with tanveermd that there si no chronology in 6145.
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?
The Jews had additional restrictions on them as per 6146, due to their punishment, which were later rescinded by Allah. Currently, as per 55
"your food is lawful to them"
those restrictions are not on Jews, and the only restrictions of food on them are as per 6145, and those particular restrictions were always on them.
If what priest says is true, that 6145 is valid only after revelation of Koran, and that before that verse was revealed, the 4 categories of haram food mentioned in it were halal for Jews, then according to the same mistaken logic, many other things in Koran would be allowed before revelation of Koran, that are forbidden. For example
6153 Say "Come let me recite to you what your Lord has forbidden for you that you should not set up anything with Him; and be kind to your parents; and do not kill your unborn children for fear of poverty, We provide for you and for them; and do not come near lewdness, what is plain of it or subtle; and do not kill the soul which God has forbidden, except in justice. That is what He enjoined you that you may comprehend."
6154 "And do not come near the money of the orphan, except for what is best, until he reached his maturity; and give honestly full measure and weight equitably. We do not burden a soul except by what it can bear, and if you speak then be just even if against a relative; and regarding the pledges made to God, you shall observe them. This He has enjoined you that you may remember."Above two verses contain many forbidden things. Does it mean that those things were forbidden only after revelation of Koran and before that, all those things were halal/allowed ?
According to priest's mistaken logic, it was halal to set up someone with Allah, be unkind to parents, kill unborn children, come near lewdness, kill souls without just reason, come near orphan's money, be dishonest in measure and weight, bear false testimony, and not observe pledges made to Allah, before revelation of Koran. That is absurd.
Best wishes to everyone and may Allah guide all of us,
-
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.
Lahma, in scientic terms, means flesh
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.
According to your logic, the products the bones, fat, and hooves of the pig are halal to eat. Is this your position? For example
If you've ever eaten in a cafeteria, chances are good that your dessert options included Jell-O. There are hundreds of different desserts that use Jell-O to create everything from your basic institutional-style gelatin square to ornate designs that incorporate varied Jell-O flavors, fruit, and whipped toppings. Jell-O consists of four basic ingredients
gelatin
water
sugar or artificial sweetener and artificial flavors
food coloringThe gelatin in Jell-O is what lets you transform it into all sorts of different shapes. What exactly is gelatin? Gelatin is just a processed version of a structural protein called collagen that is found in many animals, including humans. Collagen actually makes up almost a third of all the protein in the human body. It is a big, fibrous molecule that makes skin, bones, and tendons both strong and somewhat elastic. As you get older, your body makes less collagen, and individual collagen fibers become crosslinked with each other. You might experience this as stiff joints (from less flexible tendons) or wrinkles (from loss of skin elasticity).
The gelatin you eat in Jell-O comes from the collagen in cow or pig bones, hooves, and connective tissues. To make gelatin, manufacturers grind up these various parts and pre-treat them with either a strong acid or a strong base to break down cellular structures and release proteins like collagen. After pre-treatment, the resulting mixture is boiled. During this process, the large collagen protein ends up being partially broken down, and the resulting product is called gelatin. The gelatin is easily extracted because it forms a layer on the surface of the boiling mixture.
Gelatin is a common ingredient in foods because it is so versatile. It can be used as a gelling agent (as in Jell-O), as a thickener, an emulsifier, and a stabilizer. You'll find it in a variety of foods, from yogurt to chewing gum. Here is a list of some other foods that commonly contain gelatin
gummy bears
sour cream
cream cheese
cake icing and frosting
marshmallows
soups, sauces and gravies
canned chicken
corned beef -
Peace Asad Ali,
If what priest says is true, that 6145 is valid only after revelation of Koran, and that before that verse was revealed, the 4 categories of haram food mentioned in it were halal for Jews, then according to the same mistaken logic, many other things in Koran would be allowed before revelation of Koran, that are forbidden. For example
6153 Say "Come let me recite to you what your Lord has forbidden for you that you should not set up anything with Him; and be kind to your parents; and do not kill your unborn children for fear of poverty, We provide for you and for them; and do not come near lewdness, what is plain of it or subtle; and do not kill the soul which God has forbidden, except in justice. That is what He enjoined you that you may comprehend."
6154 "And do not come near the money of the orphan, except for what is best, until he reached his maturity; and give honestly full measure and weight equitably. We do not burden a soul except by what it can bear, and if you speak then be just even if against a relative; and regarding the pledges made to God, you shall observe them. This He has enjoined you that you may remember."Above two verses contain many forbidden things. Does it mean that those things were forbidden only after revelation of Koran and before that, all those things were halal/allowed ?
According to priest's mistaken logic, it was halal to set up someone with Allah, be unkind to parents, kill unborn children, come near lewdness, kill souls without just reason, come near orphan's money, be dishonest in measure and weight, bear false testimony, and not observe pledges made to Allah, before revelation of Koran. That is absurd.
EXCELLENT POINT.
With your permission, I would like to include your question to PB in my 9 questions to him that have gone unanswered, and that would make it an even 10 questions !
Regards,
Tanveer
-
EXCELLENT POINT.
Regards,
Tanveer
LOL! What excellent point? Ayats 55 and 6146, are talking about food. I'm discussing halal and haram food nothing else.
-
Peace upon everyone,
I agree with tanveermd that there si no chronology in 6145.
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?
The Jews had additional restrictions on them as per 6146, due to their punishment, which were later rescinded by Allah. Currently, as per 55
"your food is lawful to them"
those restrictions are not on Jews, and the only restrictions of food on them are as per 6145, and those particular restrictions were always on them.,
Thanks for making my point.
55 This day (all) the good things are allowed to you; and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them...
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.
I'm not saying there is a chronology in ayat 6146, I'm saying that there is a chronology, in that, what the Jews were forbidden in ayat 6146 precedes the revealing of Al-Quran. The point I'm making about 6146 is that, the pig, being a non-clawed animal, could not, by definiton of ayat 6146, have been haram for the Jews. The only way pigs would have been haram for them, would be if there were pigs with claws. Do you know of such a creature? I know some here, no doubt, have seen pigs with wings, but none have seen pigs with claws. lol
When Allah revealed ayat 55, He removed the dietary restrictions which He placed on Jews for their transgressions (not because He had created something bad/evil/fasiqun/rijisun by nature), thus, making their diet now contingent on what is in Al-Quran. Now, while Al- Quran was being revealed, especially ayat 55, Allah, is saying that the food of the Jews is halal to us. What halal food of the Jews was He talking about, while He was simulataneously revealing ayat 6146? The only thing we can know for certain is...it had to be animals with NO CLAWS of which the pig is one. Now, whatever else Allah made lawful an unlawful for them, relative to food anyway, we don't know.
-
Peace and caution all,
Calm down guys and lets not get too personal, finger-pointing, inflicting and degrading each other. Tanveer's last post addressed to me was as such, sidetracked, excited and can further escalate. I will though refute or accept his imaginable claims soon. Until then
I request Tanveer to provide a web link to support the scientific claims rather than simply pasting named references. There are several thousand scientific studies ongoing and scientific journals in circulation. What specific study or journal is Tanveer addressing to, to claim his victory over Cirrhosis and other diseases only specific to pig's meat, beats me. I would also request Tanveer to provide evidence/link of scientific name of meat to mean muscle? That's all for now.
And btw, aren't the links that I provide earlier scientific studies/journals???
Read the headings and author's presentations/analysis/sutdies or whatever you may call them. Can you find anything to do with specifically pig's meat in them?
http//digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/cirrhosis/index.htm
http//cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/gi/cirrhosis.html -
EXCELLENT POINT.
Regards,
Tanveer
LOL! What excellent point? Ayats 55 and 6146, are talking about food. I'm discussing halal and haram food nothing else.
Certainly, Priest. Clearly shows how people get sidetracked and excited without giving much thought to discussion at hand. lol
-
EXCELLENT POINT.
Regards,
Tanveer
LOL! What excellent point? Ayats 55 and 6146, are talking about food. I'm discussing halal and haram food nothing else.
Calm down guys and lets not get too personal, finger-pointing, inflicting and degrading each other.
Certainly, Priest. Clearly shows how people get sidetracked and excited without giving much thought to discussion at hand. lol
How true, Danish. Some here, get very emotional. I had to ask SC, to calm down and relax as well. They know their assertions are shaky; won't be long now. D
-
LOL Rant, rave, bluff, then duck, cut and run. This your m.o.; you're finished, Savage. I let you get away with not answering those 15 questions, but not this time. Your refusal to answer just establishes that you cannot defend your assertion and, rather than simply admit that, you prefer to change the subject, bluff, stall, deflect, sashay around, duck, run, rant, rave, etc. etc. etc. You can't learn anything behaving like that. Get honest and answer post haste.
Same guy who has the audacity to say that he asked other people to calm down roll My answers have been what they've always been...have the courtesy and integrity to answer other people's points first before expecting answers perpetually, but that's not on the cards for this user.
-
Peace Tanveer,
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.
No need to babble and get excited. Get to the point of discussion.
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
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.
See below.
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).
That is not the issue. Cirrhosis of the liver caused by pig?s meat as quoted by you earlier is what I am discussing, which, btw, is not true and a wrong statement. Cirrhosis, a disease, is generally an invasion of microorganisms which cause it and not by meat itself. Any meat can be infected by such microorganisms which can cause Cirrhosis, hence not specific to pig?s meat, understand. You must be clear about this and not dodge the issues to make it look bad on pig?s meat only, hence supporting your wishful claims.
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.
What conclusions, what proofs, which studies and which journals? LOL, show some decency and courtesy to provide some readily available web-links which are scientific studies/journals (like the links I provided) to support your claims, rather than pasting some peculiar named references and babbling about them. What a conclusion???
The word ?statistics? is also wrongly used in your own statement above. I do not see any statistics either in your entire post and has nothing to do with my quoted statement. Taking a course of statistics and its significance, reflects back at you. Be careful next time when pointing fingers.
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.
What is hilarious is who said you did? Infected by Cirrhosis was simply meant to mean invasion of organism (infection) to cause Cirrhosis. Anyhow, I stand corrected.
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.
The studies you quoted are just pasted information, neither proved nor concluded. Like I mentioned earlier, have the decency and courtesy to provide scientific link(s) to further investigate on what you pasted. Here are some relevant links providing scientific information on various cancers and diseases
Liver Cancer
http//www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/liver/page2
http//www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/liver/page4Sclerosis
http//www.nationalmssociety.org/Brochures-Research.asp
http//www.msaa.com/
http//www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/multiple_sclerosis/multiple_sclerosis.htm#What_research_is_being_doneVascular diseases
http//www.sirweb.org/patPub/vascularOverview.shtml#prevent
http//www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4692Let me know if these valuable informational web-links has anything to do with specifically pig?s meat, let alone your rants about scientific studies and journals.
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.
I hope you are not a blind follower of just plain theories and unproven scientific studies. Can?t you tell what surrounds you and what natural information you can collect, or do you solely rely on written papers by any Tom, Dick and Harry. Have you done any research yourself? Perhaps what you call proofs, are not proofs at all and neither concluded, but mere theories/assertions it at all, nothing else.
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.
And once again, I never said that you did? Unless treated, any infectious/contaminated meat is plainly BAD, comprende. Please stop parroting about showing me conclusions and proofs of scientific studies because they simply aren?t, and read above what I had to say in that regard.
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.
Pig meat is NOT bad by nature/creation. Gee man, YOUR sort of unconcluded and unproven scientific studies on pig?s meat will kill more people regardless of cancers and diseases.
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.
Anecdotal data??? What I presented was a natural and factual occurring incident, not a scientific theory. Besides, I gave only one example among many others which I and others have personally experienced on various scenarios. I noticed that you didn?t get my point across, since my friend?s story had nothing to do with good or bad meat, yet you ranted.
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.
I?m sure everyone here knows that smoking and alcoholic beverage consumption are injurious to health, but again, you didn?t get my point across.
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.
It certainly makes sense. The dark is defining/emphasizing the black color of cat, just like rijsun and khinzeerin. I can understand why it doesn?t make sense to you.
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.
That is just pure speculation and baloney. But yeah, go ahead and research all you want on how a human can be transformed into pig and a stick into snake, but please don?t present some baseless scientific unproven and inconclusive analogies or some magical loop-de-loop coming from wonderland into play. Good luck and happy hunting though. lol
-
Folks ?
It?s good to see things are exactly where I left them ?
I made a point in my first post to break this whole discussion into a logical and definitional argument ?
Once again ? lets try to put the logical argument to rest shall we? ?
Logical argument? ? Guess what? ? there isn?t one!!!
It?s a fantasy that PB likes to extol on the basis of the mysterious ONLY ?
For those of you not acquainted with the mysterious ONLY allow me to introduce you ?.
This ONLY is PB?s personal superhero ? his caped crusader ? that sweeps into and out of ayat 6146 when it suits him ?
It allows him to launch into
why did Allah knowing that the pig is fasiqun and rijisun, yet, allow the Prophets/Messengers and all of the righteous among them, for ages, to eat swine? This just makes no sense.
And this one
ayat 6146 makes clear that ONLY animals with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep, were made haram for the Jews to eat as food. Since pigs have no claws they cannot be haram for the Jews
Now here is how PB translates 6146
And to those who were Jews We made haram every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both
Does anyone see an ONLY in this ayat? ?
I don?t.
I looked for the phrase "to those who were Jews we ONLY made haram ..."
I looked at different translations ... focused on the arabic ... guess what? ... no ONLY ....
Heavens!!! There is no ONLY there!!!
NEWS FLASH There is no ONLY there!!!!
I REPEAT There is no ONLY there!!!!
ONE MORE TIME There is no ONLY there!!!!
What does that do to PB?s logical argument?.... It makes it rather ?ill seeming? is what it does ?
Numerous people ? including my self ? have already written pages on how PB's stance ... supported by his mysterious ONLY ...doesn?t hold any water... and highlighted how PB changes stance when it gets too hot for him ?
But you know what? ? I?ll make it really simple
There is no mysterious ONLY ? therefore PB has no logical argument ?
?Lahma Khinzeeran? ? irrespective of what it means ? is haram for all mankind ? and always has been ? Period.
Based on this ? All those who think that PB?s logical argument is ? ill seeming ? say AYE ?
PS if you say NAY ... come prepared to reveal the secret identity of the mysterious ONLY ? just where in the heck does it come from? ?
-
Peace Thor,
Aye Aye Capn'... ill seeming is just the word I've been looking for...
-
Peace Thor,
AYE, I agree that PB's logical argument is indeed ill seeming !