Is Swine Hallal

unknownuser

Peace all,

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.

Was 6146 the ONLY restrictions on Jews? Yes OR No? serious

I don't know...do you?

Now,

Have you EVER seen a pig with claws, yes or no?

unknownuser

SC,

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!

Tell us, how would a physically blind person, know if he/she were eating pork or if meat were bad? Remember, they can't see it.

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!

Do you know or don't you? "Apparently", is guess work.

savage_carrot

Peace all,

Was 6146 the ONLY restrictions on Jews? Yes OR No?

I don't know...do you?

Thats the crux of PB's argument down the drain. Read the posts in this thread in case one hasn't for my answer.

Do you know or don't you? "Apparently", is guess work.

Read the link incase it escaped you. Guesswork is something that YOU like to do according to your quote above.

Tell us, how would a physically blind person, know if he/she were eating pork or if meat were bad? Remember, they can't see it.

How would a physically blind person know the animal was strangled? By playing sherlock holmes? How would they know it's dead meat or slaughtered meat? How would they know it's even meat or synthesized veggie burgers? What an idiotic question.

Grourself

Peace,

If you have any proof please post it instead of quoting mysterious sources and asking jews/those who have the torah yourself.

You say you have access to a professor whom you obviously have ?faith? in his scholarship, let him prove it to you. I don?t know if he is a student of the torah or only Hebrew, you decide.

I will give you one hint. They have not yet after 2000 years been able to prove to those who call themselves Christian scholars that this injunction against consuming swine is an unbreakable, infallible, rational order from God for mankind given first to the Jews.

Do you think they haven?t tried? No one wants to be thought a fool, only religionists don?t mind. They think have the ?key? to the kingdom, blind following.

unknownuser

SC,

Was 6146 the ONLY restrictions on Jews? Yes OR No?

I don't know...do you?

SC Thats the crux of PB's argument down the drain. Read the posts in this thread in case one hasn't for my answer.

LOL!! My, God. Listen, your sleight of hand will not work. The crux of my argument is what I know and NOT what I do not know. What I know is the following

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.

Now, are you going to call Allah a liar?

Tell us, how would a physically blind person, know if he/she were eating pork or if meat were bad? Remember, they can't see it.

How would a physically blind person know the animal was strangled? By playing sherlock holmes? How would they know it's dead meat or slaughtered meat? How would they know it's even meat or synthesized veggie burgers? What an idiotic question.

How do you know you KNOW the above?

When are you going demonstrate your much vaunted "integrity" and answer the following

A. 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?

B. Tell us, how would a physically blind person, know if he/she were eating pork or if meat were bad? Remember, they can't see it.

Jaxal

SaLaM PB

SC asked a very crusicial question

Was 6146 the ONLY restrictions on Jews? Yes OR No?

To which, not supprisingly, you answered

I don't know
c. THEREFORE, the animal pig, was not haram for them.

Brother, dont make wild assumptions and guesswork. Read the Torah if you get the time. Specifically read . And you will see ur ridiculous assumptions going up in smoke. There is no shame to be wrong. Dont be a fool and keep repeating your mistakes. We are all trying to help you here brother.

savage_carrot

Peace,

You say you have access to a professor whom you obviously have ?faith? in his scholarship

If I had only faith to go on, I wouldn't have posted information as well now would I? You posted something saying it's NOT in the Torah. I posted some information, would you refute it then? Would you post your references that prove this swine injunction is NOT in the torah?

I will give you one hint. They have not yet after 2000 years been able to prove to those who call themselves Christian scholars that this injunction against consuming swine is an unbreakable, infallible, rational order from God for mankind given first to the Jews.

Hints? Christian scholars? What the?

Do you think they haven?t tried? No one wants to be thought a fool, only religionists don?t mind. They think have the ?key? to the kingdom, blind following.

Er, yeah okay...I would like you to cut to the chase, if that's okay with you? You posted a quote

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!

Now, do you have any resources that prove that it's not in the torah but in the talmud as that is the point of the discussion at hand and your first quote.

If you have any interesting reading regarding this subject though, I would be more than happy to read it and make up my own mind after.

unknownuser

SC,

Are you going to duck my last post to you or are you going to show us how much integrity you have and answer the questions?

Jaxal

SaLaM PB

Are you going to duck my last post to you or are you going to show us how much integrity you have and answer the questions?

Show us???

How many of you are there? Dont ask someone for integrety when you yourself dont have it. Brother there is no shame learn from other people. I sujjest, reading the Quran without your personel agenda.

unknownuser

SC,

Don't use jaxal, as an excuse not to answer what is put to you.

SAVAGE C. My answers have been what they've always been...have the courtesy and integrity to answer other people's points...

Well, keep you're word and respond to the following

SC,

Was 6146 the ONLY restrictions on Jews? Yes OR No?

I don't know...do you?

SC Thats the crux of PB's argument down the drain. Read the posts in this thread in case one hasn't for my answer.

LOL!! My, God. Listen, your sleight of hand will not work. The crux of my argument is what I know and NOT what I do not know. What I know is the following

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.

Now, are you going to call Allah a liar?

Tell us, how would a physically blind person, know if he/she were eating pork or if meat were bad? Remember, they can't see it.

How would a physically blind person know the animal was strangled? By playing sherlock holmes? How would they know it's dead meat or slaughtered meat? How would they know it's even meat or synthesized veggie burgers? What an idiotic question.

How do you know you KNOW the above?

A. 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?

B. Tell us, how would a physically blind person, know if he/she were eating pork or if meat were bad? Remember, they can't see it.

unknownuser

SaLaM PB

Are you going to duck my last post to you or are you going to show us how much integrity you have and answer the questions?

Show us???

How many of you are there? Dont ask someone for integrety when you yourself dont have it. Brother there is no shame learn from other people. I sujjest, reading the Quran without your personel agenda.

jaxal, get professional help...ASAP.

Jaxal

SaLaM My Brother

Look brother, You need to understand that we are all trying to help you here. You are misguided and confused. Dont push our help away. This what God says. Seek knowledge. Your posts are getting weaker and weaker by the minute. For example

Don't use jaxal, as an excuse not to answer what is put to you.

She didnt roll . It is you who is runny away from answering our questions. And we can understand that right now you dont have the knowledge. But ATLEAST make the effor to learn. There is no shame in having no knowledge. But only a fool argues with hollow arguments. Plz brother, dont be a fool.

Grourself

Peace,

Grourself wrote
You say you have access to a professor whom you obviously have ?faith? in his scholarship

If I had only faith to go on, I wouldn't have posted information as well now would I? You posted something saying it's NOT in the Torah. I posted some information, would you refute it then? Would you post your references that prove this swine injunction is NOT in the torah?
Grourself wrote
I will give you one hint. They have not yet after 2000 years been able to prove to those who call themselves Christian scholars that this injunction against consuming swine is an unbreakable, infallible, rational order from God for mankind given first to the Jews.

Hints? Christian scholars? What the?
Grourself wrote
Do you think they haven?t tried? No one wants to be thought a fool, only religionists don?t mind. They think have the ?key? to the kingdom, blind following.

Er, yeah okay...I would like you to cut to the chase, if that's okay with you? You posted a quote
Grourself wrote
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!

Now, do you have any resources that prove that it's not in the torah but in the talmud as that is the point of the discussion at hand and your first quote.

If you have any interesting reading regarding this subject though, I would be more than happy to read it and make up my own mind after.

Peace,

I see, you have more than faith but you have not posted what this is and you cannot percieve of scholarship in any field but something you agree is worthy.

Anyway?

Here are a couple of reference books you may like to check.

The Complete Biblical Library The Old Testament Hebrew English Dictionary
World Library Press Inc. Springfield Missouri Inc. USA- The Book Of Leviticus Page 2480 Article 2478

Hastings Dictionary Of The Bible
Edited by James Hastings 1963
Page 943

savage_carrot

Peace,

I see, you have more than faith but you have not posted what this is and you cannot percieve of scholarship in any field but something you agree is worthy.

Anyway?

Here are a couple of reference books you may like to check.

The Complete Biblical Library The Old Testament Hebrew English Dictionary
World Library Press Inc. Springfield Missouri Inc. USA- The Book Of Leviticus Page 2480 Article 2478

Thank you for the links, I will definitely look into this when I can.
Best Regards.

unknownuser

13 pages on this thread and still going? -wow what a swine of a thread!! -)

Regards,

Jaxal

SaLaM LT

Yea 13 pages of PB's NONSENSICAL posts.

savage_carrot

Peace all,

PB wants me to answer two questions.

Do pigs have claws?
Can the blind tell bad meat?

Right. You know it's over when these questions are all thats left.

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.

PB says he doesn't know what else the Jews were forbidden other than 6146.
The Jews were forbidden to eat animals with claws as per 6146.
The animal pig doesn't have claws. (cutting edge deduction there...)

HUGE LEAP TO

THEREFORE, pig was not forbidden for the Jews!

I don't even have to explain this one. It's as clear as day.

unknownuser

Peace all,

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

Thank you Marie for the proof about rules of Arabic grammar using the internal grammar of Qur'aan itself. That refutes the following very easily

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?

As per the ayaat brought to attention by Marie, the internal grammar of Qur'aan itself confirms the pertinent rules of Arabic grammar, proving that in the phrase "lahma khinzeerin", "khinzeerin" CANNOT be an adjective of "lahma". The phrase "lahma khinzeerin", therefore, can ONLY mean "meat of pig" and CANNOT mean "ill seeming bad/dirty meat" or "flesh seen as bad".

Good work Marie. That was a death blow to PB's theory of the alternate translation.

As everyone can easily notice by reviewing the complete thread, even though me, Nadia, Thor, and others have answered PB's questions before and refuted all his points time and again, PB has evaded and eluded answering any of my questions put forth to him. For the sake of the audience, I will reproduce the questions put forth to PB, that he has persistently evaded answering, with addition of some new questions, with the hope that he can give coherent and sensible answers to these questions

LIST OF QUESTIONS FOR PRIEST BOKMEI

Given that 6145 lists food made haram for mankind, and that mankind includes Jews, Why do you keep denying what Allah EXPLICITLY makes forbidden for Jews in 6145 ? Why do you keep saying that "lahma khinzeerin" is halal for Jews, whereas Allah has EXPLICITLY made it haram for them according to 6145 ?
Why do you keep denying that 6146 is a continuation of 6145, and because of that 6146 contains restrictions for Jews IN ADDITION to 6145, because of punishment ?
If you say that the foods mentioned in 6146 are the ONLY foods made haram for Jews, then were dead animals, blood, lahma khinzeerin, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah" halal for them ?
If you say that dead animals, blood, lahma khinzeerin, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah" is halal for Jews, then per 55 all those categories of food will also be halal for mankind, which would DIRECTLY CONTRADICT 2173, 53, 6145, and 16115; how would you explain that MAJOR DIRECT CONTRADICTION created in Qur'aan by your flawed logic ?
Given that 6145 is a FACTUAL LAW GIVING STATEMENT with NO CHRONOLGY, why do you keep denying that it is not applicable to Jews in the times before revelation of Qur'aan, especially when Allah repeatedly says that Qur'aan authenticates and supercedes previous scriptures ?
If you say that 6145 does not apply to Jews before the revelation of Qur'aan, and therefore, dead animals, blood, lahma khinzeerin, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah" were ALL halal for Jews before revelation of Qur'aan, then by the same twisted logic, the list of forbidden things in 6151 and 6152 would also not apply to Jews before revelation of Qur'aan and those forbidden things would have also been halal for Jews before the revelation of Qur'aan; how do you explain that ?
As per your own admission, you DO NOT KNOW what else was forbidden for Jews other than 6146. That clearly shows that you admit that restrictions in 6146 are not the ONLY restrictions on Jews, thus collapsing your whole argument. So then how can you say "lahma khinzeerin" is DEFINITELY NOT restricted on Jews, when you DO NOT KNOW what else was restricted on them ?
Given that "rijsun" is the word used by Allah in 6145 to mean "bad/unclean/dirty/filthy" as an adjective for lahma khinzeerin, how can you say that "khinzeerin" used in the same ayat is also an adjective of "lahma" meaning the same as "rijsun" ?
Can you show ONE other ayat/verse/sign in Qur'aan, where Allah uses 2 adjectives in a row, meaning the same, for the same noun ?
Given that according to the internal rules of grammar in Qur'aan, and the rules of grammar in Arabic, the phrase in Arabic meaning bad/dirty meat using the word "khinzeer" would be "lahman khinzeeran", and not "lahma khinzeerin", why do you keep insisiting that "LAHMA KHINZEERIN" means "bad/dirty/ill seeming meat" ?

Only sensible, coherent, and reasonable answers to ALL these questions will be acceptable, and evading even ONE of these questions will prove that PB's assertions and arguments hold no water and are untenable, and will be a concession that his theory has been refuted.

unknownuser

Jaxal,

It is obvious you have a deep seated need for attention. This is not the forum for that...get professional help.

unknownuser

Salaams All,

just came across this info

The word ?EER ,part of some words like khanz accurs in a number of places

540 Qad-EER(un)
560 Khanaz-EER
589 Tahr-EER

And also accurs independently

311 -EER ,They were SEEING/THINKING them

And

1076 -EER ,To be SEEN.

And using Lanes 998

It essentially means to see/understand/tTo know , using any of our senses e.t.c

I hope this helps . some of us.

May God show us what he wants to.

Salaams.