Is Swine Hallal

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.

savage_carrot

Peace all,

http//www.fda.gov/opacom/lowlit/foodsfe.html

It is hard to tell if a food is safe.

Foods that go bad may look, smell, and taste like safe foods.

So, bad meat can be perfectly normal/safe/good to the senses of sight, smell and taste YET bad...hmmm, what a quandary. Before someone even tries, let's not bring up touch and sound please.

unknownuser

SC, you like to remind us that you are brimming with integrity, yet, when asked repeatedly two very easy questions, your integrity vanishes along with your indefensible assertions.

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.

LOL!! Sorry, your post does not fly. Of course you have to explain it, what are you talking about? Are pig clawed animals or not?

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

If the following two questions are all I have, and it is clear as day and that it's all over, why, then, don't you give a clear and decisive answer to them? Why do you keep stalling? LOL! Your stalling is only proving that it is you who has nothing left, and that you aren't about the truth and integrity at all. Don't you get it that, by not answering here, but knowing the answer in your heart, is concealing the truth? What does Allah call those who conceal the truth when they know it? Answer the questions and demonstrate some integrity or continue to stall and demonstrate fraud. The choice is yours.

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.

IF THE CLAW DON'T FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT...GOT PIG?

Jaxal

SaLaM mz357

Khanzeer is a noun. Its the arabic word for pig. Its the whole word. Not a part of it. Not Khanz. But Khanzeer. like *Kabeer" which means big/great. You will also find Kabeerun. But you wont find Kab Lollllll. Its a whole word Kabeer or Khanzeer. I hope you understand.

SC, i can completely back that up for you. When i was a butcher, sometimes the meat wont smell bad at all. It would just look bad. Sometimes, the meat would look perfectly ok and it would smell bad. So I completely agree with you on this one. Even pork looked perfectly ok. Sometimes i had to smell the pork to see if its good or not.

Priest my misguided and confused brother, I have a deep seated need to help you. Im completely guilty of that. Inshallah we will all help you despite your complaining, lack of knowledge and your lack of effort to understand and research http//www.geocities.com/bigjaxal/s1.gif

If the claw dont fit, you must acquit.. got it?Now Priest, stop throwing a fit. It IS a pig. its too big! yet you cant See it? What wrong? Why dont u understand IT!! Now stop with the IT. you look like a misfIT!!

unknownuser

Peace all,

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.

A BIG LIE, EXPOSED. The persistent refusal to provide a web-link by this ill-seeming (khanzeer) individual speaks volumes about his overall character. Falsifying records to mean they are proven and concluded is another BIG LIE, talk about definitive and certain. Seems like he not only knew about this link all along but also pasted and copied all references in ditto from the bottom of the link, not to mention his own ignorance on the subject matter, the references and his laziness to provide such a link.

Arrogantly, selfishly and cunningly presenting himself ?scientific information? all along to support his pathetic stance towards specifically pig?s meat as being all that bad and other scenarios from an Islamic perspective whilst blaming me for becoming lazy, ignorant, careless, unscientific, etc., etc., he continues to be defensive and supportive to such claims, has no clue what he is talking about and neither has the audacity to bend, accept where wrong or correct himself but babbling and fudgling along.

The following site is not only an Islamic site but the participants are not all scientists and neither is this site internationally recognized. Its but natural that HISLAM (not ISLAM) will defend on its own biased merits and findings to support what is allegedly meant to be pig in the first place. Here, check this site for yourselves

http//www.islamset.com/index.html
http//www.islamset.com/hip/pork/Amin_Nanji.html

The links that I provided much earlier are all Nationally/Internationally accredited, none of which has anything to do with specifically pig?s meat. Here they are once again and many more

http//digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/cirrhosis/index.htm

http//cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/gi/cirrhosis.html

Liver Cancer
http//www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/liver/page2

http//www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/liver/page4

Sclerosis
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_done

Vascular diseases
http//www.sirweb.org/patPub/vascularOverview.shtml#prevent

http//www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4692

Atherosclerosis
http//www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4440

http//www.4woman.gov/faq/atheroscle.htm

All those diseases that Tanveer has pointed out earlier in one of his posts, please Google search and find out for yourselves that none of them pertains to the animal pig or specifically its? meat.

Having personally researched several scientific studies, including what is mentioned in Islamset, here are my relevant thoughts

Scientific studies/researches are only assertions, observations, inaccuracies, conjectures and oral testimonies, what Tanveer believes in.
None of these studies are neither proven nor conclusive, as Tanveer blatantly emphasizes.
None of these studies are specific to pig?s meat only, as Tanveer blatantly emphasizes.
None of the scientists have any clue whatsoever in their alleged findings and the researches are either still ongoing or left incomplete and not specific to pig?s meat either, which supports points 1, 2 and 3.
We all know the general consensus that scientists carry out research upon research, present varying information from time to time and even misinform to say one thing on one occasion and then turn around to mean something else on another. Specific to pig?s meat then, there?s nothing to be alarmed about unless such a case study is proven, concluded and backed/certified by the collaborated National/International Food, Drugs and Agricultural Associations.

Now then, considering the points above, some questions for our ?wise md ? Dr./scientist Tanveer?,

Do you blindly believe in any research done regardless of them being preliminary or wishy-washy or where they are coming from?
Are scientific studies the ONLY criteria you rely upon or do you ever use your own GOD given faculties and logic to witness anything yourself first hand irrespective of any studies done?
If no scientific studies have been done on specific cases, does that mean the incidents and other facts-of-life are never witnessed and cannot exist?
Are scientific researches done via incidents/events that occur or vice-versa?
Are scientific studies certain and absolute and never change?
Specific to pig?s meat, if there are two contradicting results by a team of scientists in oppositions, whom would you believe and why?
Would such scientific studies referenced above and the points made, enslave ?Allah?s Words? specific to pig issues?
Are scientific journals same as and above that of Quran? If not, then why do you keep bitching and extrapolating scientific studies to that of Quran without being certain yourself?

Please answer the above?

unknownuser

TANVEER, SC, THOR, JAXAL, MARIE,

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

Death blow?! You must be kidding. Listen, you want to deliver a death blow to my argument?, well, here's how to do it. Answer the following question

QUES. 1. Do pigs have claws, yes or ?

QUES. 2. People, who are physically blind, how do they know if they are eating pork or not?

QUES. 3. 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....

QUES. 4. 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.

QUES. 5 At the time Al-Quran was being revealed, specifically, ayat 55, were pigs, horses, deer, eels, clams, shrimps, fish ALL of the category of clawless animals, haram for the Jews to eat, yes or ? Remember, Allah SAYS "He forbade the Jews to eat animals with claws". Remember also, we cannot make anything halal or haram...ONLY Allah does that.

TANVEER 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 ?

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...

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.

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 6146, is a continuation of 6145, as you claim, then the Jews today are still not allowed to eat fat from the oxen or sheep, nor, are they allowed to eat clawless animals. If this be true, then, Muslims cannot eat clawless animals or fat from sheep and oxen either, because what is unlawful for one people is unlawful for the other, otherwise, 55 is contradicted. Now, ayat 55 says 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, hence, if clawless animals and fat of sheep and oxen are lawful to us, then, it lawful to the Jews, hence, ayat 6146 cannot be a continuation of ayat 6145 as you say it is, IF, I am understanding what YOU mean by...continuation. These ayats are referring to two different time periods.

QUES. 6 In what regard then, is ayat 6146, a continuation of 6145?

QUES. 7 How are ayats 6145 and 6146, NOT talking about two different time periods in which Jews find themselves?

unknownuser

Peace Danish,

You keep refusing to reply to the matter of translation of "lahma khinzeerin" according to Qur'aan, the internal grammar of Qur'aan, its context, and the rules of Arabic grammar. Yet you expect me to reply to your rantings ? That is strongly reminiscent of another person's tactics on this thread. Hmmm..... hmm

Do you blindly believe in any research done regardless of them being preliminary or wishy-washy or where they are coming from?
Are scientific studies the ONLY criteria you rely upon or do you ever use your own GOD given faculties and logic to witness anything yourself first hand irrespective of any studies done?
If no scientific studies have been done on specific cases, does that mean the incidents and other facts-of-life are never witnessed and cannot exist?
Are scientific researches done via incidents/events that occur or vice-versa?
Are scientific studies certain and absolute and never change?
Specific to pig?s meat, if there are two contradicting results by a team of scientists in oppositions, whom would you believe and why?
Would such scientific studies referenced above and the points made, enslave ?Allah?s Words? specific to pig issues?
Are scientific journals same as and above that of Quran? If not, then why do you keep bitching and extrapolating scientific studies to that of Quran without being certain yourself?

No, I do not blindly believe in any research, unless it confirms what Allah says in Qur'aan, or multiple studies conducted on the same subject confirm the results and the results are statistically significant and consistently reproducible.

Have you ever seen electrons or quarks with your eyes and witnessed them yourself ? If no then do you believe in their existence blindly then ?

In the case of pig meat, scientific studies have been done, which have been published in reputable scientific journals, and they have shown statistically significant correlation of pork consumption with various diseases. That confirms what Allah says about pig meat being "rijsun".

Anecdotal data, however, cannot be as reliable as scientific data.

Regarding pig's meat, please show me the scientific studies that give contradicting conclusions. Please give me the reference of any scientific study published in a reputable scientific journal THAT SHOWS NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT CORRELATION BETWEEN PORK CONSUMPTION AND INCIDENCE OF CIRRHOSIS. Despite your rantings, you have not objectively given the reference of ONE scientific study that contradicts the conclusions of the scientific studies quoted by me.

Scientific studies are never above Qur'aan. I have based my arguments on Qur'aan first and foremost and quoted scientific studies that confirm the word of Allah, not the other way round.

You however have yet to show me the refutation of the translation of "lahma khinzeerin" meaning "meat of pig" based on the INTERNAL GRAMMAR OF QUR'AAN, its context, and the Arabic grammar rules as pointed out by Marie, Someone and others in the following links

http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=53486#53486

http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=53173#53173

Your evasion and elusion of the pertinent issue posed to you multiple times in my posts is clearly a concession on your behalf that you have mistranslated the word of Allah according to your WHIMS and HUNCHES and not objectively, according to the arabic structure of "lahma khinzeerin", the internal grammar of Qur'aan, its context, and the Arabic rules of grammar.

Here it is again; please stay focused and have the guts to address the issue based on Qur'aan. Your reply should be backed by objective proof from Qur'aan and its internal grammar rules and rules of Arabic grammar, not by your highnesses's HUNCHES or twisted logic

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 and the internal grammar of Qur'aan. Grammatically, the ONLY translation of "lahma alkhinzeerin" can be "meat of pig".

According to rules of Arabic grammar and the internal grammar of Qur'aan, as explained by Marie, 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 and the internal grammar of Qur'aan, and can ONLY 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

"lahman khinzeeran" (both words have the same ending "an")

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 "an". 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 "an".

Looking forward to your staying focused on the matter at hand of the correct translation of the word of Allah. Your silence on this matter posed to you multiple times in my posts is DEAFENING !

Regards,

Tanveer

unknownuser

Peace all,

As EVERYONE can easily see, PB has yet again evaded and eluded answering ALL my questions posed to him in my post. I will patiently await his answers to all my questions.

His evading and eluding answering all my questions prove that his assertions and arguments hold no water and are untenable, and is a clear concession that his theory has been completely refuted.

unknownuser

Peace Danish,

Quote
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.

A BIG LIE, EXPOSED. The persistent refusal to provide a web-link by this ill-seeming (khanzeer) individual speaks volumes about his overall character. Falsifying records to mean they are proven and concluded is another BIG LIE, talk about definitive and certain. Seems like he not only knew about this link all along but also pasted and copied all references in ditto from the bottom of the link, not to mention his own ignorance on the subject matter, the references and his laziness to provide such a link.

Arrogantly, selfishly and cunningly presenting himself ?scientific information? all along to support his pathetic stance towards specifically pig?s meat as being all that bad and other scenarios from an Islamic perspective whilst blaming me for becoming lazy, ignorant, careless, unscientific, etc., etc., he continues to be defensive and supportive to such claims, has no clue what he is talking about and neither has the audacity to bend, accept where wrong or correct himself but babbling and fudgling along.

Which journal out of the ones given as reference has its entire contents scanned online ???? What did I lie about ?? I gave you the references to the relevant articles in reputable scientific journals and it is your obligation to yourself to verify all the information for yourself by going to a library and looking up the ORIGINAL articles in the respective journals.

The link you provided does not give the original articles from the referenced journals, but just a summary of the findings. To verify that information you need to go look up the original articles in those journals. By not looking up the original articles in the referenced scientific journals, you have no clue what you are talking about. I strongly recommend you to do that and not be lazy, before you give your twisted and conjectural views and opinions on those scientific studies.

unknownuser

PEACE, ALL,

Peace all,

As EVERYONE can easily see, PB has yet again evaded and eluded answering ALL my questions posed to him in my post. I will patiently await his answers to all my questions.

His evading and eluding answering all my questions prove that his assertions and arguments hold no water and are untenable, and is a clear concession that his theory has been completely refuted.

Tanveer, said in a prior post that, Marie's comments were a death blow to my position. Well, I told Tanveer exactly what it will take to deliver a death blow to my position. Now, I ask you, having given him a clear means to destroy my position once and for all...why doesn't he just answer the questions, which, if answered, would destroy my argument?

Tanveer and SC, are not at all sincere about ascertaining the truth about this subject, for if they were, they would stop ducking my questions and just shut me up.

Answer my questions truthfully, Tanveer, and, if you do, then, you will deliver a death blow to my argument...but not before.

unknownuser

Peace PB,

Tanveer, said in a prior post that, Marie's comments were a death blow to my position. Well, I told Tanveer exactly what it will take to deliver a death blow to my position. Now, I ask you, having given him a clear means to destroy my position once and for all...why doesn't he just answer the questions, which, if answered, would destroy my argument?

Tanveer and SC, are not at all sincere about ascertaining the truth about this subject, for if they were, they would stop ducking my questions and just shut me up.

Answer my questions truthfully, Tanveer, and, if you do, then, you will deliver a death blow to my argument...but not before.

Tanveermd asked you a series of questions time and again and you are not answering his questions, yet you expect him to answer yours. Is that not being hypocritical ?

We are all eagerly awaiting your replies to tanveermd's questions, that will destroy your theory.

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

PEACE, TANVEER,

Your claim that the pig, by virtue of its creation, is fasiqun and rijisun, and, along with your attempts to link all kinds of dreadful health consequences to the pig as to why it is haram, is simply incredible. I've asked you and SC, the following questions several times, but, because they deliver a death blow to your's and her's conjecture, you both continue to avoid answering it. Show us all what you KNOW and answer now.

Was pig haram for Noah, Abraham, Lot, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, and their respective peoples?
If not, did Allah simply allow them to eat foul meat, fully knowing as you do that, the pig is foul by nature and a huge health risk, only to later make it haram? Moses and Aaron were righteous men, were they also forbidden to eat pig?
If pig was haram for the aforementioned people, where does Allah state this in Al-Quran and, what makes it haram for later people and not the former people?
At what point in man's history, is pig made haram?

I know you won't answer them or the ones in the previous post, because they deliver the death blow to your's and SC's, notions.

unknownuser

PEACE, PLATINUM,

Didn't Tanveer claim that Marie's comment delivered the death blow to my argument? Well, it didn't, so, the questions which I gave him, if he can answer them rationally, will deliver the death blow he so dearly desires. Now, wouldn't you prefer he answer my questions and deliver the death blow to my argument...once and for all and just end this debate?

unknownuser

Peace,

Quote
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.

A BIG LIE, EXPOSED. The persistent refusal to provide a web-link by this ill-seeming (khanzeer) individual speaks volumes about his overall character. Falsifying records to mean they are proven and concluded is another BIG LIE, talk about definitive and certain. Seems like he not only knew about this link all along but also pasted and copied all references in ditto from the bottom of the link, not to mention his own ignorance on the subject matter, the references and his laziness to provide such a link.

Arrogantly, selfishly and cunningly presenting himself ?scientific information? all along to support his pathetic stance towards specifically pig?s meat as being all that bad and other scenarios from an Islamic perspective whilst blaming me for becoming lazy, ignorant, careless, unscientific, etc., etc., he continues to be defensive and supportive to such claims, has no clue what he is talking about and neither has the audacity to bend, accept where wrong or correct himself but babbling and fudgling along.

Which journal out of the ones given as reference has its entire contents scanned online ???? What did I lie about ?? I gave you the references to the relevant articles in reputable scientific journals and it is your obligation to yourself to verify all the information for yourself by going to a library and looking up the ORIGINAL articles in the respective journals.

The link you provided does not give the original articles from the referenced journals, but just a summary of the findings. To verify that information you need to go look up the original articles in those journals. By not looking up the original articles in the referenced scientific journals, you have no clue what you are talking about. I strongly recommend you to do that and not be lazy, before you give your twisted and conjectural views and opinions on those scientific studies.

How is it that now the story of referenced journals moved to "originals" all of a sudden, if not current. Since you volunteered earlier, why don't you scan the articles in question for all of us here. It would be foolish for all debaters and other forum members to dwell in libraries, for everyone here is watching this debate, fair enough?

In the meantime I'll get back to your previous response.

Jaxal

SaLaM Brother Priest

Your lack of knowledge is showing brother. Please put more efforts in your weak and ridiculous posts brother. You didnt even know that the jews were forbidden from eating the pig. Brother you need to start putting effort here. Dont feel ashamed and get all defensive here.

Question 1 & 2

I dont know. I wasnt around that time.

Question 3 & 4

Torah.

See? Your questions had such simple answers but becoz of your lack of kowledge and your pride, you are just soo defensive right now. Brother, we are here to guide and help you. Stop guessing and assuming. Your arguments are so weak becoz of ur lack of knowledge. So brother, plz put more effort to research the topic first before you post.

unknownuser

Peace Platinum,

Thank you for reminding PB what I have been asking him almost from the beginning of this thread. He has persistently evaded answering all my questions, because he knows his logic is flawed and is afraid of answering them, because that will be a death blow to his theory.

His evading and eluding answering all my questions prove that his assertions and arguments hold no water and are untenable, and is a clear concession that his theory has been completely refuted.

I will, however, patiently await his answers. When he answers, he will get the checkmate of this debate. His only option left then will be an embarrassing resignation.

unknownuser

Peace PB,

Didn't Tanveer claim that Marie's comment delivered the death blow to my argument? Well, it didn't, so, the questions which I gave him, if he can answer them rationally, will deliver the death blow he so dearly desires. Now, wouldn't you prefer he answer my questions and deliver the death blow to my argument...once and for all and just end this debate?

It does give a death blow to your theory, because lahma khinzeer cannot be translated to ill seeming flesh.