CONCLUSION OF THE SWINE DEBATE

SwedenMajidah

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

unknownuser

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.

unknownuser

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.

unknownuser

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..

..

SwedenMajidah

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

SwedenMajidah

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

unknownuser

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 Majidah

Good deal.

Peace.

unknownuser

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.

unknownuser

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 Hare

The 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 thread

The 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.

unknownuser

PEACE, MZ357,

Good information. Could you give a sentance or two in summary of what you believe the article is stating?

unknownuser

Salaams PB,

I wonder if any Br. has more info on this

Essentially the Rabi above is saying that the signs of the animals mentiuoned in the torah Leviticus 11-15 are not all true when looking at the real animals, therefore the words/names-signifying the various animals is wrong,and more then likely they mean other things.

Then again this was mentioned on another jewish forum that Biblical Names may not be same as Modern Hebrew Meanings.

And more then likely the meanings may be as in the quran ,Dead,Blood And things that are Bad e.t.c I wonder though!

God Bless.

unknownuser

PEACE, MZ357,

Salaams PB,

I wonder if any Br. has more info on this

Essentially the Rabi above is saying that the signs of the animals mentiuoned in the torah Leviticus 11-15 are not all true when looking at the real animals, therefore the words/names-signifying the various animals is wrong,and more then likely they mean other things.

Then again this was mentioned on another jewish forum that Biblical Names may not be same as Modern Hebrew Meanings.

And more then likely the meanings may be as in the quran ,Dead,Blood And things that are Bad e.t.c I wonder though!

God Bless.

Thanks, Mz. Given the Rabbis uncertainty, the latter part of the following ayat comes to mind

4157...and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture...

Peace.

unknownuser

PEACE, TO ALL,

This is the latest summary of the lahma khinzeer debate.

Lahma khinzeer, according to the Arabic dictionaries, has two meanings for khinzeer. Based on the ayat itself, there are two, on-the-surface, reasonable arguments for why it can mean pig or ill-seeming/that which I see as bad".
The "RIJSUN/HEALTH PROBLEM" argument, as with the above two arguments, also has on-the-surface reasonable arguments as to why it can and cannot be true.
The "BECAUSE ALLAH SAID SO" argument, is rejected as it defys 1736 and is nothing more than blind following.
The "OLD TESTAMENT" argument is rejected as it goes outside of the uncorrupted and perfect, Al-Quran.
The "GRAMMAR/AW" argument, as with the aforementioned, has on-the-surface- reasonable arguements.
The 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116 argument, has no reasonable counter-argument, hence, is why it has not been, via Al-Quran, refuted.

PROOF THAT THE PIG IS HALAL

4160 For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain things good/wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from Allah's Way;-

A. There is no counter-argument that a people, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, were disallowed certain previous halal "things" due to their having disobeyed Allah.

B. There is no counter-argument that, food items and animals are..."things".

C. There is no counter-argument that "things", such as food items and animals, have been categorized has halal and haram.

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.

A. There is no counter-argument that, the above ayat mentions good and and halal things and, mentions food items "things" as being halal. This ayat expands on/explains ayat 4160.

B. There is no counter-argument that, nowhere in Al-Quran, can we find any evidence that the pig, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, was haram to any people.

C. There is no counter-argument that, with "B" in mind, those who preceded Al-Quran were not forbidden to eat the pig, thus, the pig had to have been halal as there is no evidence that it was haram, thus, at the time this ayat was revealed, the pig being halal to those before Al-Quran, had to have been/is halal for those who received Al-Quran.

6146 For those who followed the Jewish Law, We forbade every (animal) with claws, and We forbade them that fat of the ox and the sheep, except what adheres to their backs or their entrails, or is mixed up with a bone this in recompense for their wilful disobedience for We are true (in Our ordinances).

A. There is no counter-argument that, pigs don't have claws.

B. There is no counter-argument that thufr does not and cannot mean hoof, because if it did then the sheep and oxen in their entirety along with their fat would have been haram, because like the pig...they have hooves as well. Once one defines define thufr as hooves, then ayat 6146 contradicts itself as to what was made haram for the Jews. Only the fat of sheep and oxen were made haram, thus, if you define thufr as hoof, well, now you've created a contradiction, because now the entire sheep and oxen become haram.

Based on the above ayats then, there is simply no Quranic support for defining lahma khinzeer as the meat of pig, because there is no Quranic counter-argument for them, thus, they override and cancel out arguments 2-5. Only the very ego-driven, the prejudice dominated and the superstition ridden, after this will continue to support that the pig is haram.

I welcome any other thoughts for the summary.

Peace.

unknownuser

Oh yeh PBM and there is no refute for this that should knock your argument to the ground for good, don't be arrogant and please listen to someone who knows the arabic language better than you at least

CAN YOU REFUTE THIS BRO?

CAN ANY ARBIC SPEAKER REFUTE THIS?

Here is my challenge and I will be sporty enough to concede if proven wrong

We can say the following

? ?, which has one meaning only ?The meat of the chicken?

we can also say the following and it also has the same exact meaning

? ?, again it also has one meaning ? the meat of a chicken?

can you spot the difference?

I. Bloody E. , to use another word to relate Lahm "Meat" to any noun of a creature, like, a Chicken, a Cow or a Pig

Lahm "MUST NOT HAVE THE AL"

like , ? ? or ? ?

can any one with two or one eye, see the above?, if you don't know arabic and you are not arrogant then let me expalin, just look at the first arabic words ? ? and memorise its shape, you will note that IT DOES NOT HAVE "AL" in front of "Lahm", while the chicken, can have "AL" or it can not have "AL", the two examples are shown above

the same meaning willbe the same if the chicken does not have "AL" or it does have "AL", and both mean "meat of a chicken", or "Meat of the chicken", "AL" in arabic means "THE"

this means "Lahm" CAN NOT HAVE "THE" if we want to relate to a specific type of meat

now, let?s now apply another Arabic word that describe the meat instead of associating it with a noun of a creature, for example, the following is valid

? ?, it simply means ?barbequed meat?

the following is also valid

? ?, it means ?rotten meat

now the following is also valid
? ?, it means ?the barbequed meat?

as well the following is valid

? ?, which means ?the rotten meat?

I. Bloody E.

if the second word is to describe the meat, like "Rotten" or "Babecued" or whatever hell of a description

Lahm can come with "AL" which is "THE" and it can also come without "THE" like this

? ?, without the "AL"

? ?, with the "AL

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING AN HONEST PERSON LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH IS THIS

the second word describing the "Lahm", MUST FOLLOW THE LAHM IN RELATION TO THE "AL"

I. Bloody E.

if "Lahm" has the "AL", then the adjective MUST have the "AL"

if Lahm does not have the "AL" then the adjective MUST NOT have the "AL"

so the following can not be VALID

? ? "This sentence can not exist in the arabic langauge" and can not be translated to any other language, sorry

I. Bloody E.

"Al Fasid" which means "The Rotten" can not describe Lahm without Lahm having the ?Al? because "Al Fasid" has the "Al",

if "Lahm " does not have the "Al", the the desription MUST follow that and should not have the "AL"

Applying this common knowledge about Arabic Grammer, on the verses where the meat of the pig appeared we see the Quarn used Lahm without ?Al? and Khanzir was used with ?Al? and without ?Al?

Like this

? ?

The above two Arabic sentences as appeared in the Quran can not be valid unless ?Khanzir? is a noun, like the chicken example

if ?Khanzir? is an adjective then ? ? is not valid Arabic sentence as I bloody explained two times now

I ask Allah to help you understand this 100% logical refute to that argument you have in hand

Peace

unknownuser

Like I said, all of your notions about grammar, which you don't fully understand, cannot refute ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116. If what you wrote is true, then it would, at the same time, refute those ayats...why can't your explanation do that?

Give it break Ahmed. I don't care if you speak Arabic or the King's English, it will not help you to refute the aforementioned ayats. Even Marie, had to pack it in, because she cannot do it either.

lol

unknownuser

look PBM

you can't reject my grammer refute because simply you admiited your ignorance in the arabic language, but now you are showing arrogance as well, because you are talking to someone who is very fluent in the arabic language as well I underrstand all the alleged grammatical errors in the Quran, so please listen

your argument is baseless unless you do not believe that Allah never made a grammer error in His Quran

i.e. you are accusing God of making a very silly grammer error that an arabic student in year 12 will never do, this is a real joke bro and I have to accuse you of blasphemy but I ask Allah to help you overcome it

I do not care regarding the meat of the pig is good or bad, let's ignor ethis for a moment

your argument that the "Khanzir" is an adjective will make Allah look silly because an adjective must follow what it describes in regards to "AL" which means "The", here it is again without any arabic words

"Lahm Khanzir" is valid if

a) Khanzir is noun
b) Khanzir is an adjective

"Lahm The Khanzir" is valid if

a) Khanzir is noun

and NOT valid if

b) Kanzir is an adjective (a grammer error)

you have one option bro, I'm sorry to tell you that

If you believe that Allah the Almighty didn't make this silly grammer mistake that a 12 year arabic student will never make, THEN YOU HAVE

a) TO CONCEDE
b) THEN REPENT
c) THEN STOP EATING HAM (if you do)
d) THEN ASK FOR FORGIVNESS FOR ALL THE HAM YOU HAVE EATEN (if you did)

your chances are very slim if not nill, let me explain

imagine we are be judged by Allah right now (we are in the judgment day)

me and you should give account for sure, now let's assume the following two possibilties that they have no third

a) the meat of the pig is Halal "Allowed"

b) the meat of the pig is Haram "Forbidden"

let's study the first possibilty and think of the account that most likely will be given by me and you

a) the meat of the pig is Halal "Allowed"

Ahmed may say Sorry Allah that I made something lawfull forbidden, but my dicision was based on the following

I) The arabic word Khanzir means "pig" for me

II) I believed that you "Al Aleem) can't make this grammer mistake that I was taught in year 12

III) I believed your honor when you stated in your Quran that it does not have any mistakes

Ahmed finished his account regarding the meat of the pig

ok mate what do you think Allah (swt) who is "Al Aleem" may tell me? certainly He is the only one that knows

now for you, you should be called a smart boy for succeeding in solving this huge puzzle by Allah in which Allah committed a huge grammer error and was trying to mislead us, don't know what the prize should be but well done anyway

now let's look at the second possiblity

b) the meat of the pig is Haram "Forbidden"

PBM may say Sorry Allah, I thought Khanzir means "rotten", but I have a good excuse "I don't speak arabic"

what do you think Allah may tell you? certainly He is the only one that knows

well, I guess and possibly that you have met Ahmed and Marie online and they try hard to explain to you with compelling evidences, but you showed only arrogance and you know that Allah DOES NOT LIKE THE ARROGANTS

End of account for PBM

ok what else do you may include in your defence slave PBM?

remembr that this grammer explanation may be mentioned and now you have to give account in how you accused Allah of making a grammer error in His Quran?

surely you are turning a blind eye on it with great ignorance and arrogance, because it is irrifutable

and I have to tell you mate, Allah hates the arrogants, I know that Allah forgive if you do a mistake with ignornace, but now you are not ignorant any more

please take my grammer refute to an arabic language teacher to qualify it before you make up your mind

peace bro

unknownuser

Peace Ahmed,

Please refrain from making assumptions, imaginations and "may be's", and a spokesperson for PB and Allah. You not only sound foolish but childish.

Try reading PB's last post again and reflect upon what he has requested for. Bandwagaoning and drum-beating about (a's) and (the's) to prove that khinzeer simply means pig is not only frivilous but ignorant and irrelevant.

Here's what PB is requesting

Like I said, all of your notions about grammar, which you don't fully understand, cannot refute ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116. If what you wrote is true, then it would, at the same time, refute those ayats...why can't your explanation do that?

....alongwith the above request, you must also prove your alleged understanding of pig's meat being rijsun by nature?

unknownuser

you can't reject my grammer refute because simply you admiited your ignorance in the arabic language, but now you are showing arrogance as well, because you are talking to someone who is very fluent in the arabic language as well I underrstand all the alleged grammatical errors in the Quran, so please listen

Others have rejected your grammar notions as well. Your fluency in the Arabic language, unfortunately at this time, is lost on you...what a pity.

your argument is baseless unless you do not believe that Allah never made a grammer error in His Quran

Look, mate, you are a smart boy, so, if my argument is baseless as you say it is, then why haven't you refuted what I presented to you in my last post? Why do you continue to push your erroneous understanding of the grammar? Like I said If what you assert is true, then it would, at the same time, refute those ayats...why can't your explanation do that..mate?

i.e. you are accusing God of making a very silly grammer error that an arabic student in year 12 will never do, this is a real joke bro and I have to accuse you of blasphemy but I ask Allah to help you overcome it

You have this wrong just as you have the debate about khinzeer wrong. I'm not accusing Allah of making a mistake, I'm simply stating that you are mstaken/ don't know what you are talking about, for if you did, you would have long ago, by way of Al-Quran, explained away ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116 lol. If your grammar argument is correct, then AUTOMATICALLY, it would explain away the aforementioned ayats, however, that is not the case...is it? Hmmm...that's a contradiction, eh? lol

you have one option bro, I'm sorry to tell you that

If you believe that Allah the Almighty didn't make this silly grammer mistake that a 12 year arabic student will never make, THEN YOU HAVE

a) TO CONCEDE
b) THEN REPENT
c) THEN STOP EATING HAM (if you do)
d) THEN ASK FOR FORGIVNESS FOR ALL THE HAM YOU HAVE EATEN (if you did)

your chances are very slim if not nill, let me explain

imagine we are be judged by Allah right now (we are in the judgment day)

me and you should give account for sure, now let's assume the following two possibilties that they have no third

now for you, you should be called a smart boy for succeeding in solving this huge puzzle by Allah in which Allah committed a huge grammer error and was trying to mislead us, don't know what the prize should be but well done anyway

well, I guess and possibly that you have met Ahmed and Marie online and they try hard to explain to you with compelling evidences, but you showed only arrogance and you know that Allah DOES NOT LIKE THE ARROGANTS

End of account for PBM

ok what else do you may include in your defence slave PBM?

remembr that this grammer explanation may be mentioned and now you have to give account in how you accused Allah of making a grammer error in His Quran?

surely you are turning a blind eye on it with great ignorance and arrogance, because it is irrifutable

and I have to tell you mate, Allah hates the arrogants, I know that Allah forgive if you do a mistake with ignornace, but now you are not ignorant any more

please take my grammer refute to an arabic language teacher to qualify it before you make up your mind

LOL! hysterically! Listen...mate, all of the above blah blah bloop dee bloo blah snort snort snort, did not explain away ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116 and, until you can do so, your grammar argument cannot be correct as it contradicts the obvious meaning of those ayats.

Look, if you want to CONVINCE me and the others that your grammar argument is correct, hence, khinzeer, in Al-Quran means the animal pig, then you must EXPLAIN AWAY AYATS...4160, 55, 6146, and 16116 , got that now? lol

And remember...IF THE CLAW DON'T FIT...YOU MUST ACQUIT! rotfl

unknownuser

Peace Ahmed,

Peace Bro

Please refrain from making assumptions, imaginations and "may be's", and a spokesperson for PB and Allah. You not only sound foolish but childish.

Thanks for the advise, but please undrerstand, I'm not making fun of it, I'm saying a fact in sort of a street language, just to make things simple and easy to understand, sorry this is my nature, if I committed a sin, I ask Allah (swt) for forgiveness because He knows my intentions, and I know that Allah in His Quran mocks the ignorant big tome with words, would you like to see an example?

I'm not saying humans can do what Allah does, but I like this awesome way taught to us by Allah in His Quran , of showing how fool, ignorant and arrogant humans can be

Try reading PB's last post again and reflect upon what he has requested for. Bandwagaoning and drum-beating about (a's) and (the's) to prove that khinzeer simply means pig is not only frivilous but ignorant and irrelevant.

look, I don't need to read it any more, because simply I got the refute that kill this silly claim that Khanzir within the context of the verses means something else other than pig

I really careless if humans made the word Khanzir to mean an additional meaning other than pig, even if it does, I will go with the common meaning as well the grammer note MUST CONFIRM THE LITERAL MEANING, I"M NOT GOING TO ALLOW SATAN TO OPEN A DOOR TO FLAW ME AS I SHUT THAT DOOR ALREADY WITH THE GRAMMER NOTE

Here's what PB is requesting

Like I said, all of your notions about grammar, which you don't fully understand, cannot refute ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116. If what you wrote is true, then it would, at the same time, refute those ayats...why can't your explanation do that?

ok for your sake I will look at it later today

....alongwith the above request, you must also prove your alleged understanding of pig's meat being rijsun by nature?

again for your sake I will look at this point later as I'm at work

peace,

PS, regarding the accusation of looking like a child, well, believe it or not I know it does and I delibertly chose to respond this way, I guess this is me anyway

cheers

unknownuser

AHMED,

Look, if you want to CONVINCE me and the others that your grammar argument is correct and that khinzeer in Al-Quran means the animal pig, then you must, via Al-Quran, EXPLAIN AWAY AYATS..., 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116 . Nothing else is acceptable. You cannot claim that your grammar argument is correct as long as it contradicts those ayats, hence, you must resolve this problem if you are to be believed.