CONCLUSION OF THE SWINE DEBATE
-
You need to Quranically refute the above Marie, otherwise, your argument is gone. Looking forward to your reply.
I have no time to repeat to you all quranic arguments which destroy your understanding.
Take much time to read carefully what is already said about it.
I leave you with peace
Marie, baloney and you know it . You know you have no Quranic refutation for declaring that the pig is haram once ayats 55 and 6146 are taken together.
Allah says
659 And with Him are the keys of the unseen treasures-- none knows them but He; and He knows what is in the land and the sea, and there falls not a leaf but He knows it, nor a grain in the darkness of the earth, nor anything green nor dry but (it is all) in a clear book.
Now, don't you think that Allah knows what is taking place on this forum between you and I as well? If so, then it behooves you to get honest and stop playing games. There is nothing to repeat, either you can in three or less sentances refute the following or you cannot. If you cannot then simply have the moral consciousness/humility and admit that. It is better to concede a point than to stick by an error and mislead yourself and others, there simply is no excuse for that at all.
- JM, wrote We have no direct knowledge of whether or not God forbade the Jews to eat pig. The torah may have been altered, so, it cannot be regarded as a reliable source of knowledge.
Now, Allah, per ayat 55, tells us that the food of the People of the Book/the Jews, is halal for us and vice versa. I've established without doubt that, prior to Al-Quran, the pig was not haram, because there exists no Quranic evidence to support such a claim, (JM, backs this up), thus, the pig, at the time Al-Quran is being revealed, is halal for the Muslim, because it was halal for the Jews/People of the Book, in that, it was NEVER haram to them in the first place. The fat of oxen and sheep and clawed animals become halal for the People of the Books/Jews, because these things were never haram for mankind in general in the first place, just for the Jews in particular, as punishment for their transgressions and not due to these things being in and of themselves rijsun/fasiqun/unhealthy for the eater to eat.
Now, prior to Allah taking away clawed animals and the fat of oxen and sheep (as punishment to the Jews), these things WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN HALAL for the Jews, otherwise, if they were already haram, how does Allah punish them? Does He make them MORE haram? Tell me, Marie, where is the pig haram before Al-Quran? Does Allah, before He revealed His Quran, decree that the pig was haram? If not, then ayats 55 and 6146, destroys your argument.
You need to Quranically refute the above Marie, otherwise, your argument is gone.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
PEACE, MARIE,
You are not serious and I have no time to waste with you
LOL! Yeah, right.
Anyway...
Marie, your stepping away and using the above as an excuse as to why you will not respond my 55/6146 argument, is a clear statement that you cannot refute it. So, from now on, whenever you attempt to declare that the meat of the pig is haram, your conscious will attack you, because in your heart of hearts, you will know that you cannot prove it due to ayats 55 and 6146. What are you going to do when others, whether here or off forum, present the 55/6146 argument, just blow them off? Your stepping away in this fashion is nothing less than a total abnegation of your erroneous position that the meat of pigs is haram.
Here's some advice Marie, don't say of Allah of that which you have no knowledge nor follow anything of which you have no knowledge ( the essence of ayats 733 and 1736). You need to ponder things more Marie, so start with ayats 733 and 1736, insha-Allah.
Peace.
-
- JM, wrote We have no direct knowledge of whether or not God forbade the Jews to eat pig. The torah may have been altered, so, it cannot be regarded as a reliable source of knowledge.
You are distorting what I have said, by quoting only a part of my post. Yes, we have no direct knowledge, but (as I have explained it) we have indirect knowledge, by combining and , and reminding the grammatical rule.
"Indirect knowledge", is a misnomer/oxymoron, and it means to "imply" something. One either has knowledge of something or one doesn't, period. If one does not have knowledge, then one has conjecture
Main Entry CONJECTURE supposition inference from defective or presumptive evidence b a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork.
Main Entry IMPLY to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement to contain potentially.
Main Entry POTENTIAL existing in possibility capable of development into actuality
Please familiarize yourself with the following definitions as well
Main Entry "I"...THINK to have as an opinion to regard as.
Main Entry OPINION belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.
Main Entry IMPRESSION a vague idea in which some confidence is placed.
Main Entry POSITIVE not speculative incontestable independent of changing circumstances.
Main Entry KNOW be certain of.
Main Entry CERTAIN known or proved to be true indisputable, dependable, reliable.
Main Entry KNOWLEDGE the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association.
Main Entry FACT the quality of being actual something that has actual existence a piece of information presented as having objective reality- in fact in truth.
Main Entry ACTUAL existing in fact or reality NOT false or apparent.
Main EntryTRUTH the state of being the case fact the body of real things, events, and facts actuality.
Main EntryREAL not artificial, fraudulent, illusory, or apparent occurring in fact.
Hence, when one loses focus of the above ayat and definitions, the following is the result
5328 And they have no knowledge of it; they do not follow anything but conjecture, and surely conjecture does not avail against the truth at all.
6116 And if you obey/follow the majority of those in the earth, they will lead you astray from Allah's way; they follow nothing but conjecture and they only lie.
Main Entry CONJECTURE supposition inference from defective or presumptive evidence b a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork.
Main Entry RAMA to speak conjecturally.
Clearly, "indirect" so-called "knowledge", is not knowledge at all, but conjecture, supposition, opinion, implication, something not existing in fact, etc. For example, the Christians have all sorts of "indirect knowledge" to support that Jesus is God/the son of God, however, they don't have one single solitary verse which emphatically, definitively, irrefutabley...DIRECTLY states that, now do they? D
Indirect knowledge is conjectural, because while it has the potential to be true, it, in its indirect state, is unrealized potentiallty, hence, it is not, in fact, knowledge (which is indisputable), but conecture/opinion.
-
JM,
6146 And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws/talons, 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.
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;...
At the time Al-Quran was being revealed, the species of animal, the pig, was not haram to the People of the Book i.e the Jews. This is my understanding, because Allah chooses His Words and means what He says, meaing, Allah made an entire category/species of animals haram to the Jews i.e. those with claws. Now, given the very fundamental fact/reality that pigs do not have claws, absolutely precludes their species of animals as being one of the species of haram animals. With this in mind then, because Allah did not make the pig haram to the Jews and, even if the Jews did forbid to themselves, it was not by Allah's Decree, that they did this, hence, the pig, at the the time Al-Quran was being revealed, was not by Allah's Decree an haram species. Given that the pig was not haram, ayat 55, clearly, tells us that the food of the People of the Book is lawful to us, hence, the pig, has to be halal to us, because it was never haram to the People of the Book in the first place and their food is halal for us.
- /JM/, wrote We have no direct knowledge of whether or not God forbade the Jews to eat pig. The torah may have been altered, so, it cannot be regarded as a reliable source of knowledge.
Now, Allah, per ayat 55, tells us that the food of the People of the Book/the Jews, is halal for us and vice versa. I've established without doubt that, prior to Al-Quran, the pig was not haram, because there exists no Quranic evidence to support such a claim, (JM, backs this up), thus, the pig, at the time Al-Quran is being revealed, is halal for the Muslim, because it was halal for the Jews/People of the Book, in that, it was NEVER haram to them in the first place. The fat of oxen and sheep and clawed animals become halal for the People of the Books/Jews, because these things were never haram for mankind in general in the first place, just for the Jews in particular, as punishment for their transgressions and not due to these things being in and of themselves rijsun/fasiqun/unhealthy for the eater to eat.
Now, prior to Allah taking away clawed animals and the fat of oxen and sheep (as punishment to the Jews), these things WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN HALAL for the Jews, otherwise, if they were already haram, how does Allah punish them? Does He make them MORE haram? Where is the pig haram before Al-Quran? Does Allah, before He revealed His Quran, decree that the pig was haram? If not, then ayats 55 and 6146, destroys the argument that the pig, either in part or whole, is haram as food.
Sorry, but...55/6146, utterly, destroys your's, Tanveer's, Savage Carrot's, Jaxal's, Marie's, Sweden's, erroneous assertion that, the meat of pigs is haram. I don't care how much grammar you bring, it will not make pigs have claws. My last comment to Marie, goes double for you
JM, your stepping away and using the above as an excuse as to why you will not respond my 55/6146 argument, is a clear statement that you cannot refute it. So, from now on, whenever you attempt to declare that the meat of the pig is haram, your conscious will attack you, because in your heart of hearts, you will know that you cannot prove it due to ayats 55 and 6146. What are you going to do when others, whether here or off forum, present the 55/6146 argument, just blow them off? Your stepping away in this fashion is nothing less than a total abnegation of your erroneous position that the meat of pigs is haram.
Here's some advice JM, don't say of Allah of that which you have no knowledge nor follow anything of which you have no knowledge ( the essence of ayats 733 and 1736). You need to ponder things more Marie, so start with ayats 733 and 1736, insha-Allah.
Peace.
-
Salaam Pb,
I know I shouldn't post here because you don't like me and my opinions.
But I have something I'm confused about.
The word for pig or swine, it seems like in all language it has a bad meaning for some reasons.
You guys who know the arabic language very well must be aware of the true word for pig, swine don't you?
If there are a wellknown word that all understands then God must use that word also in Quran, or!!!???
If it's only an appelation like "ill seeming" then of course it can goes for all bad meats infected with bacterias and so on.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
PEACE, SWEDEN,
I know I shouldn't post here because you don't like me and my opinions.
You can post anywhere you like. It's only me who cannot post anywhere I like. Where do you get the idea that I don't like you or what you have to say on a given topic? I would very much like to hear from you, however, what I don't like is for someone to be rude to me/say things to me which they know they wouldn't say to me face to face ( like Jaxal for example). I don't give my opinions anymore, because Allah, per ayat 733, makes it haram for man to give opinions relative to Him and His Deen. We must only, per ayat 1736, follow what we know as absolute fact, that is, what we have knowledge of.
But I have something I'm confused about. The word for pig or swine, it seems like in all language it has a bad meaning for some reasons.
The pig, universally, does have a bad name. It smells bad, makes weird noises, eats just about anything, likes to wallow in mud, is fat, ugly, yet, despite these things, the pig, except by some Jews and some so-called Muslims, is loved universally for its meat products.
You guys who know the arabic language very well must be aware of the true word for pig, swine don't you? If there are a wellknown word that all understands then God must use that word also in Quran, or!!!???
While khinzeer, in the Arabic language, does mean pig, it also means "that which I see as bad/the ill-seeming". The question then, is,... which definition did Allah choose to use in His Quran? As ayats 55 and 6146 prove, nowhere, has Allah made the pig haram, hence, khinzeer, cannot mean pig in Al-Quran, but the ill-seeming/that which I see as bad". I think if you really read my post dated Wed Sep 28, 2005 452 pm of this thread, it will be very apparent to you that, the pig, was never haram to man.
If it's only an appelation like "ill seeming" then of course it can goes for all bad meats infected with bacterias and so on.
I'm not certain what you mean here. Perhaps you could re-state your comment.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
Salaam PB,
Thanks for your reply,
Well what I actually meant with ill-seeming meat is that it can goes for nearly all meat if it's rotten for example or have been infected of parasites and bacterias, then it doesn't matter if the meat is from a cow or a goat or a pig.
If the arabic word khinzeer also means ill-seeming something bad then I can have a understanding that is what God is telling us in Quran.
But I'm not sure of course but not totally against that possibilities that khinzeer doesn't have to mean that pig is haram.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
PEACE, SWEDEN,
Well what I actually meant with ill-seeming meat is that it can goes for nearly all meat if it's rotten for example or have been infected of parasites and bacterias, then it doesn't matter if the meat is from a cow or a goat or a pig. If the arabic word khinzeer also means ill-seeming something bad then I can have a understanding that is what God is telling us in Quran.
I thought this is what you meant, but now you've made it clear for me. Yes, now you have it. Khninzeer, not only applies to infected cow, goat, me, but fruits, vegetables, and "toxic"/anti-Quranic people, as well.
But I'm not sure of course but not totally against that possibilities that khinzeer doesn't have to mean that pig is haram.
If you want to clear up any doubts, just read the post I gave you on this thread and you will have no doubt that, khinzeer, does not mean the animal pig in Al-Quran. Neither Marie, Savage Carrot, Tanveer, /JM/, nor Jaxal, can refute, Quranically, my analysis that post I referred you to. Are you able to reufute it? Ayats 55 and 6146, when taken together, completely dispel any notion that the pig is haram as food for mankind.
The so-called Muslim ummah, for a very long time now, has been laboring under so many lies/distortions...this is just one of them.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
Salaam Pb,
you wroteNow, Allah, per ayat 55, tells us that the food of the People of the Book/the Jews, is halal for us and vice versa. I've established without doubt that, prior to Al-Quran, the pig was not haram, because there exists no Quranic evidence to support such a claim, (JM, backs this up), thus, the pig, at the time Al-Quran is being revealed, is halal for the Muslim, because it was halal for the Jews/People of the Book, in that, it was NEVER haram to them in the first place. The fat of oxen and sheep and clawed animals become halal for the People of the Books/Jews, because these things were never haram for mankind in general in the first place, just for the Jews in particular, as punishment for their transgressions and not due to these things being in and of themselves rijsun/fasiqun/unhealthy for the eater to eat.
I suddenly get a thought of that the mention of khinzeer is mention together with blood and if we use the logic in this it must mean a ill-seeming meat not a special flesh of an animal.
It would be strange if God put the name of an forbidden animal together with blood, it must be an misunderstanding.Well sorry I'm in a rush I will come back later on Insha Allah.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Salaam Br Pb,
I checked the verse 6145 and there is khinzer mention together with apes and in that case it must refer to pig.
So I'm sorry I have nothing more to add.
I just don't know if khinzer is always used to mean pig or that it can also mean ill-seeming.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
PEACE, SWEDEN,
PBM you wroteNow, Allah, per ayat 55, tells us that the food of the People of the Book/the Jews, is halal for us and vice versa. I've established without doubt that, prior to Al-Quran, the pig was not haram, because there exists no Quranic evidence to support such a claim, (JM, backs this up), thus, the pig, at the time Al-Quran is being revealed, is halal for the Muslim, because it was halal for the Jews/People of the Book, in that, it was NEVER haram to them in the first place. The fat of oxen and sheep and clawed animals become halal for the People of the Books/Jews, because these things were never haram for mankind in general in the first place, just for the Jews in particular, as punishment for their transgressions and not due to these things being in and of themselves rijsun/fasiqun/unhealthy for the eater to eat.
I suddenly get a thought of that the mention of khinzeer is mention together with blood and if we use the logic in this it must mean a ill-seeming meat not a special flesh of an animal. It would be strange if God put the name of an forbidden animal together with blood, it must be an misunderstanding.
Majidah, your consciousness is heightening, all praises due to Allah. Of course your logic is sound in this matter. When this argument was first introduced to me over a year ago, the presenter, came to the same conclusion which you did in your above comment. The more you read the post I gave you, the more clear this becomes. D
Peace.
-
PEACE, SWEDEN,
I checked the verse 6145 and there is khinzer mention together with apes and in that case it must refer to pig.
I don't think you mean ayat 6145. I don't see apes in this ayat.
So I'm sorry I have nothing more to add.
No, problem.
I just don't know if khinzer is always used to mean pig or that it can also mean ill-seeming.
Khinzeer, while it does mean pig in the Arabic language, it also means ill-seeming/that what I see as bad. As you are beginning to see, Allah, does not use the animal pig definition in His Quran. This is what must be understood, do you see? You are undoubtedly a logic young lady, so having said that, do you realy believe, logically, that Allah transformed human beings into actual apes and pigs like we see in the zoos?
Peace.
-
I've established without doubt that, prior to Al-Quran, the pig was not haram, because there exists no Quranic evidence to support such a claim
All this proves is that Muhammads book is wrong, because we know that PIG is forbidden in the Torah and this is pre-quran.
The fat of oxen and sheep and clawed animals become halal for the People of the Books/Jews
Apparently Allah forgot to tell the Jews about this so called New law, because there is no such food law in Jewish scripture that forbids "Clawed animals/birds". In fact the Torah lists many clawed birds by name that are lawful to the Jews.
What is the point in making such a Law and than forgetting to tell the Jews about it!!!....
And the Jews already knew about the "fat of oxen and sheep" Law long before they broke the covenant of Moses, so how this can be punishment is yet another discrepancy in Muhammads Book..
..
-
Salaam Albion,
Well you should be known to that the Torah has been changed of humans to fit their needs.
It was one of the reasons why I left christianity.
Quran came and make everything alright again and you should know that people have tried to destroy Quran too and they have in some way because they add to their deen extra rules and additions in form of ahadiths and then claimed the stories father was prophet Muhaammed and then all blind people just couldn't resist to follow these manmade tales and deserted the Quran.
Therefore when we study Al-Quran we have to study for real and don't be blind so it is the real message we will adhere to.
I know it can sounds difficult and strange but we have to do that and my belief is that a one that really want to find the truth will find the truth Insha Allah.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Salaam Pb,
Well thanks for your replies,
I'm not a stranger to keep holding on to that understanding that khinzeer can refer to ill-seeming.
But I will keep this open until I realize more Brother!
I don't want to rush into something!
Peace
Sis Majidah -
PEACE, SWEDEN,
Salaam Pb,
Well thanks for your replies,
I'm not a stranger to keep holding on to that understanding that khinzeer can refer to ill-seeming.
But I will keep this open until I realize more Brother!
I don't want to rush into something!
Peace
Sis MajidahGood deal.
Peace.
-
PEACE, MQURAN and ALBION,
I requested that your discussion be removed from this thread and given its own thread. What you are discussing, while it is extremely important, is off-topic and should not be caught up in this thread. Hope you guys don't mind.
Peace.
-
Salaams All,
just came accross these few details
From [email protected] (Mark Rayman)
Date Tue, 18 Feb 97 121551 EST
Subject Wallaby, Camel, Hyrax and the HareThe torah does describe three animals as being "ma'aleh gerah" (cud
chewing) and not cloven hoofed the gamal (camel), shafan (hyrax or
coney), and the arnevet (hare).Many commentaries point out the neither the hyrax or the hare, (or
rabbits) actually chew their cud.Rabbi Hirsch in his commentary says that we must be misidentifying these
animals, and the true meaning of "arnevet" and "shafan" are not known.Rabbi Amitai ben David, in his book "sichat chulin", at the end of the
third perek, has a lengthy discussion of this issue. He quotes some
sources as saying that since these animals are always "chewing", even
when not eating, it "seems" as if they are chewing their cud.Rabbi Ben David, as well as Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (Living Torah, Vayikra
11) state that although rabbits do not chew their cud, they do eat their
fecal matter, and are therefore considered to be "ma'aleh gerah".One must also point out the camels do not chew their cud in the same way
the cows do. Camels only have three stomachs, and cows have four.We see from all this (especially if we accpet R. Ben David and Rabbi
Kaplan) is that there is not a clear singular definition of ma'aleh
gerah. And it certainly includes more than just ruminants.So the statement by the Talmud (Chulin, somewhere in the third perek)
which started this whole threadThe ruler of his world (Hashem) knows that there are no other
ma'aleh gerah that do not "split the hoof" other than the camel
(and shafan and arnevet)"is very hard to evaluate, verify, or question becuase we do not have a
good definition of "ma'aleh gera".Moshe Rayman
LEVITICUS SAYS
115 and the coney, because he cheweth the cud but divideth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you;
116 and the hare, because he cheweth the cud but divideth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you;
117 and the swine, though he divide the hoof and is cloven-footed, yet he cheweth not the cud, he is unclean to you.
118 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THESE BIBLICAL WORDS MAY NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THE SAME AS IN MODERN HEBREW where the respective translations are camel, cony and hare.
In fact, the cony and hare neither chew their cud nor have split hooves.
So even this Torah is mistranslated??????
And Lastly CHAZIR(SWINE) LOOKS AND SOUNDS LIKE THE Arabic word kHANZIR ? I wonder if this has anything to do with the mistranslation.
God Bless All.
-
PEACE, MZ357,
Good information. Could you give a sentance or two in summary of what you believe the article is stating?