Is Swine Hallal

unknownuser

Peace Tanveer,

I see that you have shown some more scientific ignorance in your post. Just as expected.

And I notice that you lack proper understanding throughout this debate and when you can?t support your views coherently, you start babbling in irrelevant issues and pointing fingers at others to show how ignorant and careless they are. Well, let me give you a taste of your own invented medicine.

Cirrhosis, a disease, is generally an invasion of microorganisms which cause it and not by meat itself.

Microorganisms are only one cause of cirrhosis; there are many others, and one of the biggest is alcoholic liver disease. Some other non-infectious causes are autoimmune hepatitis, inherited diseases including Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, hemochromatosis, Wilson's disease, galactosemia, and glycogen storage diseases, nonalcoholis steatohepatitis (NASH), blocked bile ducts, drugs and toxins, and congestive heart failure. In addition to that, according to the scientific studies I quoted from, pig meat is another cause of cirrhosis.

Firstly, this has nothing to do with my quote above. You?re simply blabbing about various forms of diseases and nothing substantial to add. Prove to me that all diseases mentioned above by you have anything to do with specifically pig?s meat (the core issue at hand). If not, then don?t waste my time with garbage. I don?t need lectures on diseases. Prove the point at hand.

Secondly, it is medically. scientifically and linguistically incorrect to say that ?pig meat is another cause of cirrhosis?, go figure. Shows your own ignorance in your own field.

Any meat can be infected by such microorganisms which can cause Cirrhosis, hence not specific to pig?s meat, understand

Some more scientific ignorance. This is getting hilarious. Only hepatitis B, C, and D viruses are the microorganisms that can cause cirrhosis, and none of these are transmitted by eating infected meat. The only hepatitis virus that is transmitted by eating infected meat is hepatitis A, which does not cause cirrhosis. Pig's meat causing cirrhosis is not due to it being infected.

Once again, I am not discussing various forms of microorganisms and diseases. And secondly, saying that ?Pig?s meat causing cirrhosis? is once again medically, scientifically and linguistically an incorrect statement. Stay on track dude, be a little focused and taste your own ignorance. Laugh it out with self-infliction, if that helps you.

What conclusions, what proofs, which studies and which journals?

That is what happens when you talk to someone who is ignorant of the scientific process.

No one is talking about any scientific ?process or processes?? Where did you get this from? Another one of your babbles. Stay focused and keep the discussion in line.

I will paste the references of the relevant articles and the scientific journals again. Go look them up in a library and do not be lazy. Any scientific person will easily be able to read what I am writing as follows, and will know exactly which article in which journal
REFERENCES

A.A. NANJI and S.W. FRENCH, "Lancet" 1, 681 (1985).
T. SORENSEN et al, "Lancet" 2, 241 (1984).
Food and Agricultural Organization. "Production year book 1975-1983".
B. AMSTRONG and R. DOLL, "Int. J. Cancer", 15, 617 (1975).
G.E. GRAY et al, "Br. J. Cancer" 39, 1 (1979).
R. SMITH, "Br. Med. J" 283, 895 (1981).
A.A. NANJI and S.K FRENCH, "Cancer" 56, 2711 (1985).
J.F. KURTZKE, "Acta Neurol Scand" 51, 110 (1975).
M.C. GRAVES, "Ann Intern Med." 101, 514 (1984).
A.A. NANJ1, "Int. J. Cardiol" 8, 487 (1985).
Z. PISA and K. UEMURA, "World Health Stat" 35, 11 (1982).
A.S. ST-LEGER et al, "Lancet" 1, 1017 (1979).
A.A. NANJ1 and S.W. FRENCH, "Atherosclerosis" 60 197, 1986

You expect people to go visit libraries upon libraries to find the above referenced articles if at all they carry them, yet hesitate to provide one single web-link that supports any one of the referenced articles which can be readily and easily available, not just for me but for all of us here.

Secondly, after collecting these articles, it would take weeks or months to read and extract the alleged scientific information from them, that is, if time permits. What a waste of time and efforts and as if I have nothing else to do. Clearly, it is you who is not only lazy to provide any substantial backing but uncooperative, arrogant and spending so much time on-line frivolously debating.

Thirdly, I have a hunch that all articles above are inconclusive, unproven or both and are simply theories/assertions/conjectures and nothing concrete.

Fourthly, isn?t there one article on the entire ?World Wide Web? that supports your alleged claims specific to pig?s meat. Hint go google.

Fifthly, you think that all the references you provided above are more authoritative, controlling and supersedes all the links I provided. Did you even care to check the authenticity of the links. I guess not, just bragging and babbling along about some references and then point fingers at me for laziness.

Lastly, almost all members here provide on-line web links to support whatever they quote. Since I provided many links, of course then it becomes easy for you and others to visit those links and respond right away. Either you cannot back-up your own references/assertions to support those conclusive and proven cases specific to pig?s meat via web-links or simply scared of getting exposed for lying, cheating and being hypocritical.

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.

Some more scientific ignorance. I never used the word "statistics" in my arguments. I used the phrase "statistical significance". Go take a course in statistics and learn what "statistical significance" means, including what "p" value means.

Once again, my above quote has nothing to with science. Now here?s another lesson for you to learn there?s no such thing as ?scientific ignorance?. One can be ignorant of science or scientific studies/analysis but ignorance itself cannot be scientific or unscientific.

Here?s the word ?statistics? used in your previous reply. The fact that the word is used, speaks volumes about your statement above, yet neither statistics nor statistical data provided. What a bummer? You?re not only lying but becoming hysterical. Here

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.

Pig meat is NOT bad by nature/creation.

Says who ? Please back up your claims by scientific studies and give me the references that show that pig meat does not cause disease of noninfectious etiology. I have backed up my claims by an extensive reference list.

Says nature/ceation, our GOD given faculties that even scientific studies rely upon. Simply put, logic. Pig meat or any meat for that matter is NOT bad by the very nature of their creation. Any meat can become bad when infected and/or by noninfectious diseases, and this has nothing to do with specifically pig?s meat. It does not mean that all pigs born in this entire world already carry infectious meat and therefore we mustn?t eat them. Likewise, not all animal meat are bad by nature and by their very creation. There are no scientific studies/analysis that claim otherwise that every pig born must carry infectious meat and neither are there enough studies done on each and every animal on earth. That would be a redundant, misleading, incorrect and a foolish statement. If you cannot grasp this simple notion, then you are simply not fit for further discussions.

All the links you gave, nowhere show that pig meat DOES NOT cause disease of noninfectious origin.

LOL! What a twister and an ignorant statement you bring about? Show me anywhere in those links that it even mentions specifically pig?s meat, let alone your gibberish talks and twisting words. Secondly, LOL, you proved my point. Now think hard on how and what you write, and laugh at yourself.

Anecdotal data??? What I presented was a natural and factual occurring incident, not a scientific theory.

Some more scientific ignorance. It clearly shows that you have no idea what "anecdotal data" means.

Anecdotal data = natural and factual occurring incident, not based on scientific evidence. Anecdotal is not scientific. You say "anecdotal data ???" and then say "what I presented was........" and actually define "anecdotal data" and then at the end equate "anecdotal data" to "scientific theory". Hilarious

Scientific studies are themselves based on natural and factual incidents, without which there wouldn't be any studies to base upon. What are you talking about? You need some serious thinking to do before you babble out and point fingers.

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.

So you do not believe Allah's words when He tells you that He turned Moses' staff into a serpent ?

I can?t speak or claim certainty over something that neither I nor anyone has ever witnessed. What Allah can do or cannot do, is beyond my perceptions and irrelevant of discussion. We are discussing, studying and analyzing Quranic injunctions and contextual understanding of what is written as per our current natural ways. But since you babble and rely upon scientific studies which is quite apparent on all your posts, perhaps you can prove or bring about scientific analysis/journals on how a stick can turn into serpent or a human into pig, as mentioned above? This would be very interesting indeed and will truly expose your redundancies and alleged claims. More serious research and thinking for you to do mate, scientifically.

I have noticed that you did not comment at all on the translation of "lahma alkhinzeerin" according to the Arabic grammar rules. Grammatically, there is NO WAY you or anyone can translate "lahma alkhinzeerin" into "ill seeming meat". Making "alkhinzeerin" an adjective of "lahma", will violate the grammar rules completely. Grammatically, the ONLY translation of "lahma alkhinzeerin" can be "meat of pig". Be careful of mistranslating Allah's words, for that is tantamount to saying lies about Allah

Already been analysed, discussed and translated/interpreted. Cannot contemplate, that is your problem, not mine.

Last but not least, I request you to stay focused, discuss the relevancy of topic/quotes, stop finger-pointing, becoming personal, hysterical, degrading, and reply succinctly. If you do reply back and persist in unethical ways, then I will only answer the relevant points and recommend you take-up some courses that may teach you how to debate/discuss. This will be my last reply given in the fashion similar to yours.

unknownuser

SaLaM PB

Another word which is a compund. NONSENSICAL. This word is comprised of NON - SENSE - ICAL. It means Lacking intelligible meaning a nonsensical jumble of words.. Something like what comes out of PRIEST. Especially when one does not does his research and blindly beleives what someone else thinks.

by all means, keep watching me humilate myself

Tho misguided, you are a brother to me PB. And i WILL watch u humiliate urself.

Funnily God tells us at one point that if we are in doubt, we consult the previous scripture. Amazing isnt it

While Allah does tell us to refer to prior books, it is not in total, but for a specific matter.

Btw, we are not brothers.

unknownuser

Jaxal and Sweden,

Please dispense with the personal comments. People get personal when they have nothing of value to contribute. If you want to make personal comments, then refer yourselves to the TRASH BIN.

unknownuser

PEACE, TANVEER,

What surprises me is how come everyone keeps ignoring the grammatical rules while translating "lahma alkhinzeerin". Grammatically, there is NO WAY anyone can translate "lahma alkhinzeerin" into "ill seeming or bad/dirty meat". Making "alkhinzeerin" an adjective of "lahma", will violate the Arabic grammar rules. Grammatically, the ONLY translation of "lahma alkhinzeerin" can be "meat of pig". The relevant rules of Arabic grammar have been posted multiple times by Someone, and I have quoted them at the following link

The supposed rules of grammar, cannot supercede the Ayats of Allahs. When taken together, ayats 393, 55, 6146, 16118, prove that Someone and you, are mistaken about the grammar. What is your...Quranic refutation for the following

Allah, relative to food, specifically, in regard to the Jews says

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 Truth.

Now, what is the realtionship between ayat 6146 and 55? I've explained this in depth

55 This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them....

At the time these ayats were being revealed, what animals for food were not haram for the People of the Book/The Jews to eat? That's right ALL the animals which were...CLAWLESS. Well, the pig is a clawless animal/qaudruped, hence, at the time these ayats were being revealed, the pig would have had to have been halal for both the Jews and the Muslims, because it was never made haram by Allah in first place. With that said, lahma khinzerin cannot mean pig in the literal sense, because that would then contradict ayats 55 and 6146.

Looking forward to your reply.

Jaxal

SaLaM PB

While Allah does tell us to refer to prior books, it is not in total, but for a specific matter.

Like the matter of pig. Especially since you are very misguided about this issue. So take God's advice and don't feel ashamed about your lack of knoeledge, brother. http//www.geocities.com/bigjaxal/s1.gif

unknownuser

PEACE, TANVEER,

Peace Grourself,

PB has evaded this question persistently, maybe you can answer.

If the foods mentioned in 6146 were the ONLY foods made haram for Jews due to their punishment, then dead animals, blood, lahma khinzeerin (whatever it means), and "what is dedicated to other than Allah" must be halal for them. If that is true then per 55 all those categories of food will also be halal for mankind, which would DIRECTLY CONTRADICT 6145, how would you explain that ?

According to that logic, even if you translate "lahma khinzeerin" to be "ill seeming bad/dirty meat", it would become halal for mankind per 55, because it was halal for Jews !! MAJOR DIRECT CONTRADICTION with 2173, 53, 6145, 16115

Tanveer, stop with the "ONLY" baloney already. I've already rescinded that position in my response to Thor. Here it is

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.

Main Entry EVERY being each individual or part of a group without exception.

Listen, I'll accept that there is no "only" in the ayat, no problem. Let's change "only" then...to "every", kewl? LOL! Now, my problem is solved, however, yours and the others is not. Ayat 6146 still says that, the animals with claws were made haram for the Jews to eat. Now, have you ever seen a pig...with claws? In that, pigs do not have claws, they are exempt from the animals made haram to the Jews, period, end of story. Now, given that Allah did not make the pig haram to the Jews, guess what?...you and the others cannot extrapolate or claim that He did.

16116 And, for what your tongues describe, do not utter the lie, (saying) This is lawful and this is unlawful, in order to forge a lie against Allah; surely those who forge the lie against Allah shall not prosper.

If the claw don't fit...you must acquit. lol

Stop pursuing phantoms and canards.

unknownuser

SaLaM PB

While Allah does tell us to refer to prior books, it is not in total, but for a specific matter.

Like the matter of pig. Especially since you are very misguided about this issue. So take God's advice and don't feel ashamed about your lack of knoeledge, brother. http//www.geocities.com/bigjaxal/s1.gif

Post the ayat where Allah tells us to refer to the Torah, specifically, concerning the pig.

LOL! Your constant referring to "shame", is an indication that you are the one with these feelings. What you are doing is called...projection...so...own your feelings.

Jaxal

SaLaM PB

You expect everyone to spoon feed you. Brother dont be scared of doing an actual research http//www.geocities.com/bigjaxal/s1.gif. Look it up in the Quran. Inshallah God will guide you. Right now, your posts are NONSENSICAL. But inshallah God will guide you. I want to help that is why i am asking you to look it up yourself. BTW, i didnt know you were a psychologist. My psychologist couldnt help me. Maybe you can http//www.geocities.com/bigjaxal/s1.gif

Thor

PB,

You're being hypocritcal ... saying again would give the false impression that its intermittent ...

Now lets take a look at this ... thing .... that you call logic ...

Listen, I'll accept that there is no "only" in the ayat, no problem. Let's change "only" then...to "every", kewl? LOL! Now, my problem is solved, however, yours and the others is not. Ayat 6146 still says that, the animals with claws were made haram for the Jews to eat. Now, have you ever seen a pig...with claws? In that, pigs do not have claws, they are exempt from the animals made haram to the Jews, period, end of story. Now, given that Allah did not make the pig haram to the Jews, guess what?...you and the others cannot extrapolate or claim that He did.

Now watch carefully ... this is called logical reasoning ... not to mention basic grammer

EVERY animal with claws prohibited --> Pigs have no claws --> therefore 6146 does not apply to pigs

read it a couple of time so you understand it ... then compare it to

ONLY animals with claws prohibited --> Pigs have no claws --> therefore pigs are not prohibited

in case you are forgetting ... number 2 (quite appropriately) is the crap you've been dolling out for the past 11 pages ...

LOL! Now, my problem is solved

I concur with the LOL part ...

tell me ... Is it nice in this fantasy world of your's? ...

your problems are far from solved ... and I'm not just talking about this thread either ...

but you know what they say ... small steps ... now that we have eliminated your imaginary friend Mr ONLY from in 6146 ... lets bring it home for the big finish shall we?

Repeat after me

6146 does not apply to Pigs. I can't use it to prove pigs aren't prohibited.

Keep repeating it until you get it ...

savage_carrot

Peace all,

People are coming in and giving their opinions without looking at a basic fact, it came down in a particular language, which is called arabic. People are not even analyzing everything, they have just made their minds up from the other side even when presented with basic discrepancies. This is trying to forcefit a meaning and using 'logic' that is proved to be anything but. This is how the thread has progressed, generally...

OOooh Look! Pig meat is the odd one out in this verse! There must be no named animal in this verse! That means it must not be a named animal at all! That's right! hint only one word for pig in arabic, strange how God must've overlooked that.
What to do now, didn't that one user post something along the lines of 'Flash I see bad"? That'll work.
Let us put in some distracting elements as well, so that this argument is accepted without much fuss and ado...Jews! They are always in demand.
Jews in 6146 were ONLY given these restrictions and thats it. Therefore we can eat PIG! W00t!!!!1
Others No we can't there is no ONLY there...and those were not the only ones, but additional ones, otherwise explain blood, dead meat etc.
Ooops, gotta cover our tracks...well there is an EVERY! Yes, problem solved.
Others The EVERY animal with claws does NOT refer to PIGS! It refers to every animal with claws...damn, it's like OBVIOUS.

8 ) Well, let's address this point later! There are more pressing issues to deal with indeed...during this hullabaloo, no one notices that the language the quran came down in is sneakily being ignored.

Others Grammatically, Flesh (or Flash as some like to call it) I see bad is not working, it is also redundant and making the literary quality suffer, as well as causing problems when used on it's own in 560.
What! There is no need for grammar! What, redundancy! That's canard! The quran repeats itself all the time! We must not be grammar experts! We can obviate the need to reach the correct conclusion by ignoring grammar/linguistics of the language it came down in!
Others Dear God!
Doesn't the quran repeat itself?
Others Not when it doesn't grammatically work, not by making the literary quality suffer, and it is not redundant to be in a rhythmic flow as opposed to saying "Don't eat flesh I see bad, for it is bad!" Awesome! An eyeopener for the masses it is.
No no, you don't understand, it's not just Flesh I see bad, it's also Flesh I smell bad! So that blind people don't suffer more than they have to!
Others But...but...the definition, the language...sentence structure! There is no smell in there! It has to do with sight! Flash I SEE bad remember!
What! We are no grammar experts and anyone who tries to be one around here is playing with God and His quran! The quran transcends everything, including basic rules of arabic grammar, the language the quran came down in.
Others How will you ever reach a halfway unbiased conclusion if you want to ignore the language and it's structure the quran was revealed in! You can't twist everything around to mean what you want it to while ignoring basic rules of the language it was revealed in.

18 ) We will. And if we were on the other side of the argument, you'd bet we would be analyzing the grammar down to the diptotes to prove our point. Just because this is what we want it to mean, we are not going to look closely at the objections! You just can't please everyone y'know.

And that's all folks!

unknownuser

Peace Danish,

Firstly, this has nothing to do with my quote above. You?re simply blabbing about various forms of diseases and nothing substantial to add. Prove to me that all diseases mentioned above by you have anything to do with specifically pig?s meat (the core issue at hand). If not, then don?t waste my time with garbage. I don?t need lectures on diseases. Prove the point at hand.

My post was about scientific studies demonstrating that pork consumption is causally correlated to incidence of cirrhosis in human beings. You are the one who started this garbage about other causes of cirrhosis, which was totally unrelated to pig meat and I was just responding to the garbage started by you.

Consumption of pig meat has been shown to be another cause of cirrhosis in human beings by the scientific studies I quoted from, thereby demonstrating the intrinsically bad nature of pig meat, and confirming the word of Allah, calling pig meat "rijsun".

Once again, I am not discussing various forms of microorganisms and diseases. And secondly, saying that ?Pig?s meat causing cirrhosis? is once again medically, scientifically and linguistically an incorrect statement. Stay on track dude, be a little focused and taste your own ignorance. Laugh it out with self-infliction, if that helps you.

I was focused on pork consumption as a cause of cirrhosis and other diseases in humans, which has been proved by scientific studies, thereby demonstrating the intrinsically bad nature of pig meat. You are the one who started getting off track by talking about infections and microorganisms. You should apply your advice to yourself, and stay focused and on track.

You expect people to go visit libraries upon libraries to find the above referenced articles if at all they carry them, yet hesitate to provide one single web-link that supports any one of the referenced articles which can be readily and easily available, not just for me but for all of us here.

Scientific journals are not scanned online. My obligation was to provide you with references, so you can verify the information yourself. Now if you are lazy, that is not my problem.

Secondly, after collecting these articles, it would take weeks or months to read and extract the alleged scientific information from them, that is, if time permits. What a waste of time and efforts and as if I have nothing else to do. Clearly, it is you who is not only lazy to provide any substantial backing but uncooperative, arrogant and spending so much time on-line frivolously debating.

Once you have the referenced journals, it will take at most few hours to verify the information I presented. So do not be lazy.

Thirdly, I have a hunch that all articles above are inconclusive, unproven or both and are simply theories/assertions/conjectures and nothing concrete.

Now I understand how you arrive at your understandings. By your HUNCHES ?? Instead of reading and verifying something and using your reason and logic, you go by your HUNCHES ?? This is hilarious rotfl

No wonder you have been unable to understand the word of The God.

1737 And do not uphold what you have no knowledge of. For the hearing, eyesight, and mind, all these you are responsible for.

Do you have a hunch what The God is talking about in 1737 ?

Fourthly, isn?t there one article on the entire ?World Wide Web? that supports your alleged claims specific to pig?s meat. Hint go google.

You can google if you like, what is stopping you ? The onus of verification is on you not me. I provided you with all the relevant references and info, now go verify it as per 1737, and do not be lazy.

Fifthly, you think that all the references you provided above are more authoritative, controlling and supersedes all the links I provided. Did you even care to check the authenticity of the links. I guess not, just bragging and babbling along about some references and then point fingers at me for laziness.

You are the one not checking the authenticity of the references I provided by being lazy. Is calling a lazy person lazy, wrong ? I am the one who did my research and provided you with some scientific information. Now the onus of verification for yourself is on you not me. I provided you with all the relevant references and info, now go verify it as per 1737, and do not be lazy.

Lastly, almost all members here provide on-line web links to support whatever they quote. Since I provided many links, of course then it becomes easy for you and others to visit those links and respond right away. Either you cannot back-up your own references/assertions to support those conclusive and proven cases specific to pig?s meat via web-links or simply scared of getting exposed for lying, cheating and being hypocritical.

I gave you all the necessary references in the scientific journals. Those scientific journals are not scanned online. Do you want me to scan those journals for you and post them online for you, your highness ?

Here?s the word ?statistics? used in your previous reply. The fact that the word is used, speaks volumes about your statement above, yet neither statistics nor statistical data provided. What a bummer? You?re not only lying but becoming hysterical.

I never used the word "statistics" in my argument about pork consumption as a scientifically proven cause of cirrhosis. I was merely advising you to take some statistics classes, and that was not part of my argument about the subject at hand.

Says nature/ceation, our GOD given faculties that even scientific studies rely upon. Simply put, logic. Pig meat or any meat for that matter is NOT bad by the very nature of their creation.

So now whatever his highness says becomes a scientific fact ? without any proof ? without any backing by any scientific data, or scientific studies ? That is hilarious. rotfl

There are no scientific studies/analysis that claim otherwise that every pig born must carry infectious meat

See your garbage again in your statement ? You are the one who keeps talking about infections, whereas I never talked about any scientific studies of infections in pig meat. I mentioned scientific studies that show that consumption of UNINFECTED pork is causally correlated with cirrhosis and other diseases in humans, thereby proving the intrinsically bad nature of pig meat.

LOL! What a twister and an ignorant statement you bring about? Show me anywhere in those links that it even mentions specifically pig?s meat, let alone your gibberish talks and twisting words. Secondly, LOL, you proved my point. Now think hard on how and what you write, and laugh at yourself.

I guess ignorant people cannot understand a simple scientific question, and for them it becomes a twister ! Let me repeat SHOW ME ONE SCIENTIFIC STUDY THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT CONSUMPTION OF PIG MEAT DOES NOT CAUSE CIRRHOSIS IN HUMANS, i.e. any scientific study that shows that pork consumption has no significant correlation with incidence of cirrhosis in human beings.

Scientific studies are themselves based on natural and factual incidents, without which there wouldn't be any studies to base upon. What are you talking about? You need some serious thinking to do before you babble out and point fingers.

I guess you still have not figured out the difference between anecdotal data and scientific data. Proves your ignorance.

Already been analysed, discussed and translated/interpreted. Cannot contemplate, that is your problem, not mine.

Where ? in your dreams ? or are you now hallucinating ? wake up man ~0

I take the above as concession from you of your inability to refute my point about the translation of "lahma alkhinzeerin" according to the rules of Arabic grammar. Here it is again

Grammatically, there is NO WAY you or anyone can translate "lahma alkhinzeerin" into "ill seeming meat". Making "alkhinzeerin" an adjective of "lahma", will violate the rules of Arabic grammar. Grammatically, the ONLY translation of "lahma alkhinzeerin" can be "meat of pig".

According to rules of Arabic grammar, as explained by Someone and others multiple times, "alkhinzeerin" in "lahma alkhinzeerin" as per 2173, 53, and 16115, cannot be an adjective for "lahma", but has to be a noun. So "lahma alkhinzeerin" CANNOT mean "illseeming meat" according to rules of Arabic grammar but has to mean "meat of pig".

For "alkhinzeer" 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 alkhinzeerin" as used in 2173, 53, and 16115, 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 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.

Looking forward to your staying focused and answering this last point.

Regards,

Tanveer

marie

Salam all,

In "lahma alkhinzeerin" as used in 2173, 53, and 16115, 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 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.

As explained by br/sis Tanveer, according the grammar, khinzeer cannot be cannot be an adjective for "lahma" (6145), if this is the case we should read lahman khinzeeran like daman masfoohan/running blood - - instead of lahma khinzeerin

Qul la ajidu feema oohiyailayya muharraman AAala taAAimin yatAAamuhu illa an yakoona maytatan aw daman masfoohan aw lahma khinzeerin... (6145)

Another example from 1614, we read lahman tariyyan / a tender meat and where tariyyan is an adjective for lahm/meat.
See also 3512

Salam

Grourself

AGAIN

All food was lawful to the children of Israel except that which Israel had forbidden to himself, before the Taurat was revealed. Say Bring then the Taurat and read it, if you are truthful.

Has anyone who says swine has been sanctioned by God taken this advice? I have, I?ve asked those who say they have the torah and no it?s not in the law. It?s Talmud. That was easy!

Have you at least checked historical references? I have, they are unable to find how this prohibition originated other than to speculate. That was easy!

Have any of the scientific minds declared swine unfit for human consumption? No.

I will provide references to anyone interested in other than blindly following Arab conjecture and contradictory scientific findings.

savage_carrot

Peace,

Has anyone who says swine has been sanctioned by God taken this advice? I have, I?ve asked those who say they have the torah and no it?s not in the law. It?s Talmud. That was easy!

http//www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

In its most limited sense, "Torah" refers to the Five Books of Moses Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

TORAH (The Law)

Bereishith (In the beginning...) (Genesis)
Shemoth (The names...) (Exodus)
Vayiqra (And He called...) (Leviticus)
Bamidbar (In the wilderness...) (Numbers)
Devarim (The words...) (Deuteronomy)

4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that part the hoof the camel, because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you.
5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you.
6 And the hare, because she cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, she is unclean unto you.
7 And the swine, because he parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, but cheweth not the cud, he is unclean unto you.

My jewish neighbour, a professor in hebrew uni, told us quite clearly that the dietary restrictions come from the LAW, apparently it seems correct, that was easy!

unknownuser

JAXAL,

You expect everyone to spoon feed you. Brother dont be scared of doing an actual research http//www.geocities.com/bigjaxal/s1.gif. Look it up in the Quran. Inshallah God will guide you.

SaLaM PB

Quote
While Allah does tell us to refer to prior books, it is not in total, but for a specific matter.

Like the matter of pig. Especially since you are very misguided about this issue. So take God's advice and don't feel ashamed about your lack of knoeledge, brother.

LOL!! You made a claim about the pig, now you do your own research and back it up, you must be kidding. You see, you talk too much and now, as with every thing else, you look foolish. Post the ayat where Allah tells us to refer to the Torah, specifically, concerning the pig.

Right now, your posts are NONSENSICAL. But inshallah God will guide you. I want to help that is why i am asking you to look it up yourself. BTW, i didnt know you were a psychologist. My psychologist couldnt help me. Maybe you can http//www.geocities.com/bigjaxal/s1.gif

It is apparent at this point that something is reall wrong with you psychologically. Seek professional help. It is also apparent that you are not the least the bit interested in examining the subject under discussion. Your agenda is to simply undermine and cause fitna. This is my last post to you as you simply a waste of time.

Grourself

Peace,

My jewish neighbour, a professor in hebrew uni, told us quite clearly that the dietary restrictions come from the LAW, apparently it seems correct, that was easy!

That?s unacceptable. Did he show you and provide an analysis? I think not. God did not say ask a Jew to tell you his opinion. He says they are liars. Tell them to bring the proof from the Torah. I didn't say silly easy. I said easy as in doable.

unknownuser

Thor,

No matter how much you want to re-work ayat 6146, it still will come out the same way...

Neither you, SC, Tanveer, Jaxal, Sweden, or anyone else for that matter, per the following ayat, can make something haram. Only Allah makes something haram or halal

16116 And, for what your tongues describe, do not utter the lie, (saying) This is lawful and this is unlawful, in order to forge a lie against Allah; surely those who forge the lie against Allah shall not prosper.

LOL!! You can stop bringing up the "only" red herring now, it won't work. I rescinded my use of "only", remember?

LOL!! Here, repeat the following ayat and syllogism...say...10,000 times, because it's probably going to take that before its meaning even begins sinks into your brain. Stop posting for a few months and devote your time to this task. lol

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 Truth.

A. the Jews were forbidden to eat animals with claws.

B. the animal pig doesn't have claws.

c. THEREFORE, the animal pig, was not haram for them.

Jaxal

SaLaM My Dear Brother

This whole thread is fitna. Lollllllllllll . Once again you ask people to spoon feed you becoz you are too lazy to do it on ur own. God does not love those who are lazy. You need to start putting effor in to change around ur NONSENSICAL posts and start making sense brother. Dont be misguided by ur personel feelings. There is no shame in being wrong.

BTW, professional help didnt help me. I was hoping you can use YOUR expertise and help me here? Loll This whole thread is a therapy for me. lol lol

unknownuser

SC,

Jews in 6146 were ONLY given these restrictions and thats it. Therefore we can eat PIG! W00t!!!!1 5) Others No we can't there is no ONLY there...and those were not the only ones, but additional ones, otherwise explain blood, dead meat etc.

The use of "only" was rescinded. LOL! Why are you still carrying that smelly dead body around? Nothing else to say, eh?

Ooops, gotta cover our tracks...well there is an EVERY! Yes, problem solved.

Nope, it's called...correcting one's position. Something which you have, thus far anyway, proven you are constitutionally unable to do.

Others The EVERY animal with claws does NOT refer to PIGS! It refers to every animal with claws...damn, it's like OBVIOUS.

LOL Hysterically!! Well, you finally got it! What took you so long? "The EVERY animal with claws does NOT refer to PIGS", because pigs don't have CLAWS! You're right, it is totally obvious! Allah, made haram to the Jews an entire category of animals.... those with claws, hence, it can't be referring to pigs, because as an animal...it has no claws, duh?.

A. the Jews were forbidden to eat animals with claws.

B. the animal pig...doesn't have claws.

c. THEREFORE, the animal pig, was not haram for them.

Get it? D

But, if you don't believe me, perhaps you will believe YOUR OWN EYES.

Here's a very simple proof

Tell us, have YOU ever seen a pig with claws? Yes or no?

Btw, until you, Thor, and Jaxal, truly come to understand the meaning of the term logic, you should simply drop the term from your vocabulary, because you guys are simply abusing the term at this point.

8 ) Well, let's address this point later! There are more pressing issues to deal with indeed...during this hullabaloo, no one notices that the language the quran came down in is sneakily being ignored.

Hmmm...why not right now? wink

Others Grammatically, Flesh (or Flash as some like to call it) I see bad is not working, it is also redundant and making the literary quality suffer, as well as causing problems when used on it's own in 560.
What! There is no need for grammar! What, redundancy! That's canard! The quran repeats itself all the time! We must not be grammar experts! We can obviate the need to reach the correct conclusion by ignoring grammar/linguistics of the language it came down in!

Grammar cannot contradict the Ayats of Allah, nor, does the interanl grammar of Al-Quran contradict the Ayats, this is simply impossible. The grammar explanation offered by Someone, contradicts the Ayats of Allah. Now, either Allah's Ayats are wrong or the grammar explanation is misunderstood. Which do you think it is?

Btw, Danish, posted an excellent understanding of khinzerin in a prior post. I suggest that you look at and study it...you might get it then. D

IF THE CLAW DON'T FIT...YOU MUST ACQUIT! lol

GOT PIG? lol

unknownuser

...