Is swine halal-2?
-
Mquran
PBM 1. whether or not Jews are being referred to, some people, who precede the avent of Al-Quran, were forbidden to eat animals with claws (pigs don't have claws).
Right, but how does this contradict anything unless you only take half the quran? 6/146 makes clawed animals haram but does this mean ONLY 6/146 is in place? Depends on what fraction of al-quraan u accept, i suppose!
Specious nonsesnse. No ayat contradicts another under any circumstance. 6146, relative to haram food vis a vis a people before the advent of Al-Quran, stands alone, please.
PBM 5. given there is no evidence of the pig being haram to eat by the people before the advent of Al-Quran, and their food is halal to us, well, given that the pig is not mentioned as being haram at the time Al-Quran is being revealed, it was halal (we cannot make haram what Allah didn't). Once again, if this isn't the case, then ayats 53 and 55...contradict and that is impossible.
No evidence BEFORE? Try this on for size
Nothing is said to thee that was not said to the apostles before thee that thy lord has at his Command (all) forgiveness as well as a most Grievous Penalty (41/43)
So ar-rasul through time has always taught lahumul khinzeer was haraam.
I agree, in that, lahma khinzeer, means the "ill-seeming/that what is seen as bad", however, if lahma khinzeer mean the animal pig, then you must overcome ayat 6146 which tells us that people before the advent of Al-Quran were forbidden to eat animals with claws. Now, as pigs do not have claws this cannot apply to pigs, hence, lahma khinzeerin cannot mean the animal pig. Ayat 6146 definitively states what animals were made haram to a people before the advent of Al-Quran. Now, if the animal pig was haram to other Messengers and their people, then you must produce the ayat which definitively states that. Btw, what Messenger told some group of people before the advent of Al-Quran, that animals with claws were now forbidden to them (prior to being made haram they were halal see 4160)?
-
PEACE, ALI OMAR and ALL,
Why are we all seemingly talking past each other? ?
I think so.
There are, at least, two issues here, that of the quranic grammar, and that of the meaning of verses when seen together.
Exactly.
Arabic grammar is not as simple as Marie put it, but the references that she used from our present quran are quite clear, and her observations are very good. I do believe that the language used in the quran is accurate, but the references used here are all based on diacritical marks, and I do not believe those are original, but added in at a later stage.
From my understanding, the diacritical makrks were added circa 1250C.E.
In other cases in the Arabic language you do not always have the ending of an adjective tally with that of the noun it refers to, but it must, among other things, agree in gender, like ?bayt qadiim? = an old house, and female, like ?jariidah qadiimah?= an old newspaper, etc. Therefore, are the specifications of nouns vs. adjectives, as described by Marie, put there by God or by humans? I believe it is more useful if we can discuss the matter at hand in a more open way.
Some of the pertinent ayats
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...
4160 For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from Allah's Way;-
Although food is not mentioned in the above ayat, food, must come under the category of good and wholesome, as well as, what is not good or wholesome and haram.
1059 Say, "Did you note how GOD sends down to you all kinds of
provisions, then you render some of them unlawful, and some lawful?" Say, "Did GOD give you permission to do this? Or, do you fabricate lies and attribute them to GOD?"16116 But say not - for any false thing that your tongues may put forth,- "This is halal, and this is haram," so as to ascribe false things to Allah. For those who ascribe false things to Allah, will never prosper.
1736 And follow not that of which you have not the knowledge; surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that.
It appears as if the grammar is gray/doubtful area and, per ayat 1736, we cannot follow it as if we have certitude/knowledge of it. Now, in contrast to the doubtful grammar are the indisputable/without doubt ayats themselves
-
There is no doubt that per ayat 6146, the Jews, a people of the Book or, if you prefer, a people who preceded the advent of Al-Quran, were forbidden by Allah to eat an entire species of animals---those with claws.
-
As pigs do not have claws they cannot be represented in the aforementioned haram group of animals.
-
Per ayat 6146, relative to food, the only foods, either in total or part, which were haram by Allah, are listed.
-
The group of animals which were made haram were originally halal and were made haram as punishment and not because the animals were rijsun/foul (see ayat 4160).
-
Per ayat 55, the People of the Book or, if you prefer, a people who preceded the advent of Al-Quran, are allowed to eat the food of those who were given Al-Quran and those who were given Al-Quran are allowed to eat their food.
-
Given fact 4. we cannot make haram what Allah clearly hasn't (see ayats 1059 and 16116), hence, in the absence of any evidence that the pig was a haram animal to any people who preceded the advent of Al-Quran ( see ayat 6146), the pig is halal for those who were given Al-Quran.
-
In order to prove that the pig, either in total or part, is haram, the proponents of this argument must prove, via Al-Quran, the following
A. That the pig, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, was haram.
B. If the pig was haram prior to the advent of Al-Quran, then the reason why must be stated i.e was it made haram due to being rijsun or as a punishment or what.
People can, and undoubtedly will, dispute the grammar for an eternity, however, there is no disputing the above facts.
Looking forward to your replies.
-
-
PBM,
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe in al-quraan all of the time or half of al-quraan half of the time? Its a rhetorical question.
If you believe in all of al-quraan all of the time, you will follow the following pattern of behaviour
-
it tells you its in the lisaanun arabiyun mubiin. So checking any Arabic resource, lahumul khinzeer means the meat of the pig. Its funny to see you reject something as common as this (with no quranic basis as one who would reject the meaning of the conventional as-salaat) but WHOLLY accept Sunnis understanding of the alladhina uutul kitaab and alladhina haadu. Its a good indication of your hypocrisy.
-
Assuming you accept lahumul khinzeer to be meat of pig (see above), then since you believe in all of al-quraan all of the time, you must therefore believe in 5/3 and other lahumul khinzeer verses all the time.
-
Then, if you go about acting like an alladhina haadu guy (e.g., listening to falsehoods like in 4/46) , Allah makes haraam for you dhi dzufurin, Tell me, the minute Allah lifts this restriction for you, does it mean you go celebrating with a Bacon McMuffin or does 5/3, 6/145 and all other verses apply? Im sure you believe in all of the quran all of the time.
If I were you, Id start having conforming standards of interpretation. If youre going to break down words, break down ALL WORDS. If youre going to believe in lisanun arabiyun mubiin, employ it throughout. Is there ANY QURANIC REASON why you reject the standard meaning of lahumul khinzeer other than your personal bias?
-
-
PBM,
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe in al-quraan all of the time or half of al-quraan half of the time? It?s a rhetorical question.
If you believe in all of al-quraan all of the time, you will follow the following pattern of behaviour
1.it tells you its in the lisaanun arabiyun mubiin. So checking any Arabic resource, lahumul khinzeer means ?the meat of the pig?. Its funny to see you reject something as common as this (with no quranic basis as one who would reject the meaning of the conventional as-salaat) but WHOLLY accept Sunni?s understanding of the ?alladhina uutul kitaab? and ?alladhina haadu?. It?s a good indication of your hypocrisy.
2.Assuming you accept lahumul khinzeer to be ?meat of pig (see above)?, then since you believe in all of al-quraan all of the time, you must therefore believe in 5/3 and other lahumul khinzeer verses all the time.
3.Then, if you go about acting like an ?alladhina haadu? guy (e.g., listening to falsehoods like in 4/46) , Allah makes haraam for you dhi dzufurin, Tell me, the minute Allah lifts this restriction for you, does it mean you go celebrating with a Bacon McMuffin or does 5/3, 6/145 and all other verses apply? Im sure you believe in all of the quran all of the time.
If I were you, I?d start having conforming standards of interpretation. If you?re going to break down words, break down ALL WORDS. If you?re going to believe in lisanun arabiyun mubiin, employ it throughout. Is there ANY QURANIC REASON why you reject the standard meaning of lahumul khinzeer other than your personal bias?
Your reply did not refute my last post to you. This is no surprise, because there is no Quranic refutation for it. Btw, please don't confuse your ad hominem reply with a refutation, they are not the same thing. You and some of the others here claim that the pig is haram, well, the burden of proof is with you and you have not proven your case. I'll tell you what I told Ra-jah...it's time for you to pack it in and go home on this one.
Peace.
-
Your reply did not refute my last post to you. This is no surprise, because there is no Quranic refutation for it. Btw, please don't confuse your ad hominem reply with a refutation, they are not the same thing. You and some of the others here claim that the pig is haram, well, the burden of proof is with you and you have not proven your case. I'll tell you what I told Ra-jah...it's time for you to pack it in and go home on this one.
Eh, what happened to your usual bombastic posts full of definitions n stuff? Suddenly you're at a loss for words?!!.
The burden of proof is on YOU because lisaanun arabiyun mubeen has spoken al-khinzeer is the pig. You can't produce a single verse to refute that definition. Not a single one.
Sadly, you need to resort to SUNNI interpretations like 'haadu = jews' and 'ahlul kitaab= jews' which al-quraan definitely rejects. I guess the name PRIEST does suit you after all.
The question remains do you believe in half of the quran half of the time or all of the quran all of the time?
-
Eh, what happened to your usual bombastic posts full of definitions n stuff? Suddenly you're at a loss for words?!!.
The burden of proof is on YOU because lisaanun arabiyun mubeen has spoken al-khinzeer is the pig. You can't produce a single verse to refute that definition. Not a single one.
On the contrary, the burden of proof is with you, because you claim that, according to Allah, lahma khinzeerin means the animal pig and is forbidden in this Deen, so the burden of proof rests with you. Anyway, your latest ad hominem is a testament to your inability to refute, when taken together, ayats 4160, 55, and 6146 and why they prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the pig was ever haram.
If you want to discuss the other things mentioned in your post, then by all means start threads on them, however, as far as this discussion is concerned....your finished...unless of course, you can refute 7 A and B on the following post of this thread Sat Oct 15, 2005 1015 am. Thus far you have proven not to be up to the task.
Peace.
-
Peace,
The burden of proof is on YOU because lisaanun arabiyun mubeen has spoken al-khinzeer is the pig. You can't produce a single verse to refute that definition. Not a single one.
Lisaanun arabiyun mubeen is NOT Quran. Definition of khinzeer in not only pig. The word 'khinzeer' has several other derivatives/forms.
Sadly, you need to resort to SUNNI interpretations like 'haadu = jews' and 'ahlul kitaab= jews' which al-quraan definitely rejects. I guess the name PRIEST does suit you after all.
Sadly enough, pig's meat being bad hence forbidden, is definitely a SUNNI/SHIA interpretation, not found in GOD's System/Nature/Law.
The question remains do you believe in half of the quran half of the time or all of the quran all of the time?
I believe PB has elaborated and explained everything to do with khinzeer relevant to all of the Quran all of the time and manifold.
-
PB
PBM On the contrary, the burden of proof is with you, because you claim that, according to Allah, lahma khinzeerin means the animal pig and is forbidden in this Deen, so the burden of proof rests with you. Anyway, your latest ad hominem is a testament to your inability to refute, when taken together, ayats 4160, 55, and 6146 and why they prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the pig was ever haram
.Funny. The ENTIRE Arabic speaking world calls al-khinzeer the pig. If you deny this assertion of the Arabic language, PROVE IT D Not a single comes to mind, huh PBM?
Where is your proof that 'alladhina haadu' 'and 'alladhina uutul kitaab' are the people you say they are? That's when your SUNNI colours show itself, hehe. I guess you're joining the 'vast majority of the arent at alls'..lol
Lisaanun arabiyun mubeen is NOT Quran. Definition of khinzeer in not only pig. The word 'khinzeer' has several other derivatives/forms.
Right, so you can make up the language as you go along, is that right Danish?
Please quote your Arabic resources Danish AND THEN show us how al-quraan is more partial to YOUR definition rather than lisaanun arabiyun mubeen. Thank you.
Sadly enough, pig's meat being bad hence forbidden, is definitely a SUNNI/SHIA interpretation, not found in GOD's System/Nature/Law.
False. I never said pig's meat is bad. Where are you getting all this from?
The logic is simple al-quraan says that unconditionally, lahumul khinzeer is haram. Checking lisaanun arabiyun mubiin, al-khinzeer is the pig. Checking back to al-furqaan, there's nothing to contradict this, contextually. Therefore lahumul khinzeer is the pig. We don't need to go 'pig's meat is bad bla bla bla'.
I believe PB has elaborated and explained everything to do with khinzeer relevant to all of the Quran all of the time and manifold.
PBM is a liar who uses SUNNI AND SHIA understanding even though al-quraan is against it because it suits his purpose. That's why you find our man now whimpering because he can no longer back up his argument now that the 'jew connection' and 'the people of the book' connection has been pulled out from under him.
If im wrong, please, provide the evidence that 'alldhina haadu' and 'alladhina uutul kitaab' are who you say they are. I await your evidence.
-
PBM On the contrary, the burden of proof is with you, because you claim that, according to Allah, lahma khinzeerin means the animal pig and is forbidden in this Deen, so the burden of proof rests with you. Anyway, your latest ad hominem is a testament to your inability to refute, when taken together, ayats 4160, 55, and 6146 and why they prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the pig was ever haram.
Funny. The ENTIRE Arabic speaking world calls al-khinzeer the pig. If you deny this assertion of the Arabic language, PROVE IT Not a single comes to mind, huh PBM? Where is your proof that 'alladhina haadu' 'and 'alladhina uutul kitaab' are the people you say they are? That's when your SUNNI colours show itself, hehe. I guess you're joining the 'vast majority of the arent at alls'..lol
The the vast majority of the ARABIC speaking world defines salaa as a ritual prayer, yet, they are wrong...so what is your point?
Anyway...
There's no problem here. Of course khinzeer means pig in the Arabic language, however, it also means that which is ill-seeming/that which is seen as bad. Now, the question is...which definition did Allah choose for His Quran? Well, ayats 4160, 55, and 61146, absolutely precludes the animal pig definition. You haven't been able to refute this conclusion yet. All you're doing is trying to do is make an argument that the people of the book aren't Jews and that is why khinzeer cannot mean ill-seeming/that which is seen as bad. Your sleight-of-hand tactics are inadequate and you still are under the heel of of ayat 4160, 55, and 6146 lol.
Listen, if you don't want to accept that the people of the book includes Jews and that is who is being referred to in ayats 4160 and 6146, fine, no problem., I'll give you that. However, those ayats are referring to SOME people preceding Al-Quran and, whoever they were, Allah made haram to them food items which, previous to their transgressing, were halal. In addition, the pig could not have been one of them, because pigs do not have claws. Given that you have not been able to provide any evidence that the pig, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, was haram to any PEOPLE, ayat 55 makes it use for the Muslim halal.
Btw, when are you going to answer my question as to why you, and erroneously so, believe the pig is haram? I hope you will stop dodging this question.
Right, so you can make up the language as you go along, is that right Danish? Please quote your Arabic resources Danish AND THEN show us how al-quraan is more partial to YOUR definition rather than lisaanun arabiyun mubeen. Thank you.
You should leave Danish alone , dude...you are waaayyy out of your depth with him and he will only further embarrass you. lol
DANISH Sadly enough, pig's meat being bad hence forbidden, is definitely a SUNNI/SHIA interpretation, not found in GOD's System/Nature/Law.
False. I never said pig's meat is bad. Where are you getting all this from?
Them why is it haram?
The logic is simple al-quraan says that unconditionally, lahumul khinzeer is haram. Checking lisaanun arabiyun mubiin, al-khinzeer is the pig. Checking back to al-furqaan, there's nothing to contradict this, contextually. Therefore lahumul khinzeer is the pig. We don't need to go 'pig's meat is bad bla bla bla'
What, does Allah simply makes things haram arbitrarily and ask us to comply? If so, then He is demanding blind following and that certainly isn't His way. Allah, per ayat 6146, explains that He made certain foods haram to a certain people due to their haveing transgressed. He made that which dies of itself haram, because it is rijsun. So, again, where does He explain why the meat of pig is haram? Your use of logic in regard to yourself...is an oxymoron, dude lol .
I believe PB has elaborated and explained everything to do with khinzeer relevant to all of the Quran all of the time and manifold.
PBM is a liar who uses SUNNI AND SHIA understanding even though al-quraan is against it because it suits his purpose. That's why you find our man now whimpering because he can no longer back up his argument now that the 'jew connection' and 'the people of the book' connection has been pulled out from under him. If im wrong, please, provide the evidence that 'alldhina haadu' and 'alladhina uutul kitaab' are who you say they are. I await your evidence.
The only liar around here, and an egregious one that, is YOU sir. Liar, whimpering??...these are your behaviors; please don't project your character defects on to me, thanks. LOL! man, as with Jaxal, you must smoke weed too, because your perceptual/cognitive abilities and judgement, relative to this discussion anyway, are obviously severely impaired. As I've said to you above SOME people preceding Al-Quran and, whoever they were, Allah made haram to them certain food items which, previous to their transgressing, were halal. In addition, the pig could not have been one of them, because pigs do not have claws. Given that you have not been able to provide any evidence that the pig, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, was haram to any PEOPLE, ayat 55 makes it use for the Muslim halal.
So, the evidence required of you is
-
Why did Allah, make the pig haram.
-
Provide the evidence where, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, Allah made the pig haram to some peoples or another and why.
Awaiting your...evidence. Let's see what you have wink.
-
-
The the vast majority of the ARABIC speaking world defines salaa as a ritual prayer, yet, they are wrong...so what is your point?
Ah finally a relevant question. You need to celebrate this evolution you just experienced that puts you right up there with those who can hold a conversation. Well done.
There's a problem with defining 'as-salaat' as 'ritual prayers' because AL-QURAN ITSELF denies the meaning THROUGH ITS CONTEXT. Why on earth would AL-MUSHRIKEEN perform ritual prayers (9/11) and those OUTSIDE al-mumineen be told to perform ritual prayers after drawing of the will (5/106)
Can you do the same for al-khinzeer? Lol, I dont think so. So, if you were honest and sincere (big 'if' there), you'd accept the clear Arabic language for its meaning of 'al-khinzeer'.
There's no problem here. Of course khinzeer means pig in the Arabic language, however, it also means that which is ill-seeming/that which is seen as bad.
No , the latter is a made-up meaning. The Quran has no such 'khanz' meaning at all so you have no business breaking khinzeer down.
Now, the question is...which definition did Allah choose for His Quran? Well, ayats 4160, 55, and 61146, absolutely precludes the animal pig definition. You haven't been able to refute this conclusion yet. All you're doing is trying to do is make an argument that the people of the book aren't Jews and that is why khinzeer cannot mean ill-seeming/that which is seen as bad. Your sleight-of-hand tactics are inadequate and you still are under the heel of of ayat 4160, 55, and 6146
Hehe, sleight of hand? Pretty audacious coming from a guy who would accept THE TORAH if it suits his purpose. No wonder you were reduced to a whimper a post ago.
The reason why you think I can't answer this is because you're a Half-a-Quran believer. You'll only believe in the quran if it suits your purpose. Don't worry, plenty of hypocrites like you in this forum.
Listen, if you don't want to accept that the people of the book includes Jews and that is who is being referred to in ayats 4160 and 6146, fine, no problem., I'll give you that. However, those ayats are referring to SOME people preceding Al-Quran and, whoever they were, Allah made haram to them food items which, previous to their transgressing, were halal. In addition, the pig could not have been one of them, because pigs do not have claws. Given that you have not been able to provide any evidence that the pig, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, was haram to any PEOPLE, ayat 55 makes it use for the Muslim halal.
Ah, ANOTHER coherent paragraph. Two in a row, you've really evolved beyond neanderthal now!
In addition, the pig could not have been one of them, because pigs do not have claws.
CLAWS? Who said it meant claws?
Btw, when are you going to answer my question as to why you, and erroneously so, believe the pig is haram? I hope you will stop dodging this question
Dodging? Like when you slipped and asked me about the last prophet (typically sunni phrasing there) being not mentioned as maa kaana minal mushrikeen. Tell me why you mentioned that argument and Ill answer.
You should leave Danish alone , dude...you are waaayyy out of your depth with him and he will only further embarrass you
Embarrass? YOU may do this for ego massage (thats why, against Allahs command not to conject, you claim most ppl calling themselves muslims are in fact not) but not everyone is like you. Being wrong isnt a problem with me at all. Danish can embarrass me all he wants. Its a free cyberspace. Thanks for showing the forum your real reason for being here though. The likes of you are only good to throw at sunnis but once the philosophy of al-quraan contradict your destructive ways, youll turn even against al-quraan itself.
Them why is it haram?
Al-quraan says 'all tayyib fool is halal', therefore what isn't halal must be khabith since tayyib is the opposite of khabith.
What, does Allah simply makes things haram arbitrarily and ask us to comply? If so, then He is demanding blind following and that certainly isn't His way. Allah, per ayat 6146, explains that He made certain foods haram to a certain people due to their haveing transgressed. He made that which dies of itself haram, because it is rijsun. So, again, where does He explain why the meat of pig is haram? Your use of logic in regard to yourself...is an oxymoron, dude
Well, I've given you the reason above but if you want to presume to act like how your priestly name suggests, that's your problem. I don't question Allah because I trust the Book bil haqq.
The only liar around here, and an egregious one that, is YOU sir. Liar, whimpering??...these are your behaviors; please don't project your character defects on to me, thanks. LOL! man, as with Jaxal, you must smoke weed too, because your perceptual/cognitive abilities and judgement, relative to this discussion anyway, are obviously severely impaired. As I've said to you above SOME people preceding Al-Quran and, whoever they were, Allah made haram to them certain food items which, previous to their transgressing, were halal. In addition, the pig could not have been one of them, because pigs do not have claws. Given that you have not been able to provide any evidence that the pig, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, was haram to any PEOPLE, ayat 55 makes it use for the Muslim halal.
Hehe, no wonder your name is PRIEST Bok Mei despite al-quraan DENOUNCING priesthoods. You first start with a rubbish understanding of Torah, People of the Book and Jews which you got from SUNNIS. Then when you see it contradicts, you hide behind fake linguistics.
Lets see if you can answer these questions, I will field them one more time for you and keep repeating them until you answer
-
What is your QURANIC evidence that khinzeer is a compound word?
-
Why did Allah use KULLUN before dhi dhufrin ?
-
If al-khinzeer is an attribute, then why is it completely different from other attributive terms in plural form?
I wouldnt expect you to answer these questions but it would be good for real Quran students as opposed to closet Sunnis to see whats going on.
-
-
This is how PBM arrived at his conclusion
This is my understanding. 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.
Note the following quotations by the goodly Priest
1.This is my understanding <---- he refused to accept my statements when I told him that's my understanding. He said O.k. then give us the precise Quranic definition of haneefan. I don't went your conjecture as to what its definition is or your theory of what its definition is or what you think its definition. I want to post what you KNOW to be the precise Quranic definition
- the pig, was not haram to the People of the Book i.e the Jews <----typical sunni understanding unfounded in al-quraan. So much for him ranting to others 'I have no idead. My concern is not the history written by man, but what Allah has revealed in Al-Quran
Here's why he thinks The Pig is ok for us
-
He thinks 6/146 refers to the Jews, a racial entity despite al-quraan's denial.
-
At the time of the Prophet, apparently Jews didn't eat pork (probably woody allen wasnt alive then). How does the Priest know this? By other than al-quraan despite his rant below
I have no idead. My concern is not the history written by man, but what Allah has revealed in Al-Quran.
- So since the Jews only had 6/146 behind them and 5/5 tells us that people of the book's food is halal for us, therefore the pig wasn't halal at the time and 5/3 refers to rotten meat because al-quraan doesn't contradict itself.
WHAT UTTER RUBBISH.
I havent seen such chop-up-the-book interpretations since my analysis of sunnism. Sunnis love to present verses upon verses but use thier unquranic understanding to actually render those verses relevant. To them, this makes thier argument 'sound'. PBM is the worst kind of sunni, the kind who pretends he's quranic.
Here's the deconstruction of his 'reasoning'. Notice how much extra-quranic information he 'slips' in
-
He asserts that 6/146 apparently is about Jews. Al-quraan has never rendered 'alladhina haadu' as jews. Not once. Rather, it gives them behavioural patterns so we can identify them (e.g. 4/46). PBM got it from his sunni buddies.
-
He asserts 'the jews' are 'people of the book'. Another deduction the Priest has to go OUTSIDE al-quraan. Nowhere does al-quraan call 'alladhina haadu' as 'alladhina uutul kitaab'. Nowhere at all.
-
He asserts that, at the time of the prophet, jews didn't eat pork. Once again, we can't possibly know this unless we looked outside al-quraan.
-
He asserts that 'the jews' didn't recieve the same instructions as the ones al-quraan gives. IF in fact 'the jews at the time of the prophet' were the remnants of the people Musa led and IF its the same Musa of al-quraan, then Musa must have forbidden to them pork as well because Muhammad was told Nothing is said to thee that was not said to the apostles before thee (41/43)
All nabiyeen brought AL-KITAAB BIL HAQQ (2/213). Therefore if the Jews in Medina didn't eat thier ham-on-ryes, they must have following Musa's teachings.
PBM ACKNOWLEDGES that lahmul khinzeer could mean 'the meat of pig'
There's no problem here. Of course khinzeer means pig in the Arabic language, however, it also means that which is ill-seeming/that which is seen as bad. Now, the question is...which definition did Allah choose for His Quran? Well, ayats 4160, 55, and 61146, absolutely precludes the animal pig definition. You haven't been able to refute this conclusion yet.So in other words, if 6/146 , 5/5 and 4/160 fails to uphold PBM's need for pork pie's, he's left with nothing to stand on.
He then (very 'generously') rescinds on his jews and ppl of the book reasoning and says
Listen, if you don't want to accept that the people of the book includes Jews and that is who is being referred to in ayats 4160 and 6146, fine, no problem., I'll give you that. However, those ayats are referring to SOME people preceding Al-Quran and, whoever they were, Allah made haram to them food items which, previous to their transgressing, were halal. In addition, the pig could not have been one of them, because pigs do not have claws. Given that you have not been able to provide any evidence that the pig, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, was haram to any PEOPLE, ayat 55 makes it use for the Muslim halal.
The guy's brain must have short-circuited during while putting on his cassock!
Now his reasoning is . However, those ayats are referring to SOME people preceding Al-Quran and, whoever they were, Allah made haram to them food items which, previous to their transgressing, were halal.
Agreed. It does refer to some people. And if you think dhufrin means 'claws', it must therefore 6/146 must therefore exclude the pig. Note that I said 6/146 and not any other verse.
Given that you have not been able to provide any evidence that the pig, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, was haram to any PEOPLE, ayat 55 makes it use for the Muslim halal
So Muslims only read 6/146 and seeing that it doesnt include pork, 5/5 makes everything ok? Half-a-quran believer strikes again!
What about 5/3 and the like. Without your 'jew' and 'people of the book' nonsense, lahmul khizeer is very clearly 'meat of pig'. You wrote it yourself
There's no problem here. Of course khinzeer means pig in the Arabic language, however, it also means that which is ill-seeming/that which is seen as bad. Now, the question is...which definition did Allah choose for His Quran? Well, ayats 4160, 55, and 61146, absolutely precludes the animal pig definition
So climb of this historical nonsense. The only way for you to prove your point is by resorting to EXTRA-QURANIC resources.
-
PBM The the vast majority of the ARABIC speaking world defines salaa as a ritual prayer, yet, they are wrong...so what is your point?
Ah finally a relevant question. You need to celebrate this evolution you just experienced that puts you right up there with those who can hold a conversation. Well done.
Well, count yourself out. I'm not having a conversation with you, I'm talking down to you, don't you even get that yet? You're simply an amusement, but rest assured about this...I really don't take you seriously.
There's a problem with defining 'as-salaat' as 'ritual prayers' because AL-QURAN ITSELF denies the meaning THROUGH ITS CONTEXT. Why on earth would AL-MUSHRIKEEN perform ritual prayers (9/11) and those OUTSIDE al-mumineen be told to perform ritual prayers after drawing of the will (5/106) Can you do the same for al-khinzeer? Lol, I dont think so. So, if you were honest and sincere (big 'if' there), you'd accept the clear Arabic language for its meaning of 'al-khinzeer'.
I see you continue to indulge in the same same activity as Jaxal, because you cannot even remember what you say. You're comment to me was
mquran Funny. The ENTIRE Arabic speaking world calls al-khinzeer the pig. If you deny this assertion of the Arabic language, PROVE IT
You didn't refer to Al-Quran, but the Arabic language, hence, my reply to you was dead on accurate. Pull yourself together, will you.
PBM There's no problem here. Of course khinzeer means pig in the Arabic language, however, it also means that which is ill-seeming/that which is seen as bad.
No , the latter is a made-up meaning. The Quran has no such 'khanz' meaning at all so you have no business breaking khinzeer down.
Oh, I see, it's made up! LOL! My God, is there no bottom to your denial? A dumb question I know, because you will only deny that you are in denial...the chief symptom of denial. Anyway refer yourself to the Dictionary of the Holy Quran, Omar, pg. 166
PBM Now, the question is...which definition did Allah choose for His Quran? Well, ayats 4160, 55, and 61146, absolutely precludes the animal pig definition. You haven't been able to refute this conclusion yet. All you're doing is trying to do is make an argument that the people of the book aren't Jews and that is why khinzeer cannot mean ill-seeming/that which is seen as bad. Your sleight-of-hand tactics are inadequate and you still are under the heel of of ayat 4160, 55, and 6146
Hehe, sleight of hand? Pretty audacious coming from a guy who would accept THE TORAH if it suits his purpose. No wonder you were reduced to a whimper a post ago. The reason why you think I can't answer this is because you're a Half-a-Quran believer. You'll only believe in the quran if it suits your purpose. Don't worry, plenty of hypocrites like you in this forum.
Ad hominem and rambling on, but no Quranic refutation of my assertion. Hopefully, one day, you will come to understand that just typing and posting whatever comes into your..."mind", is not refutation. How did you forward your position that the pig is haram in this Deen by the above? LOL!...you didn't! My above comment to you still stands...bring your convincing borhan/proof. Provide the Quranic evidence and can your "thoughts".
PBM Listen, if you don't want to accept that the people of the book includes Jews and that is who is being referred to in ayats 4160 and 6146, fine, no problem., I'll give you that. However, those ayats are referring to SOME people preceding Al-Quran and, whoever they were, Allah made haram to them food items which, previous to their transgressing, were halal. In addition, the pig could not have been one of them, because pigs do not have claws. Given that you have not been able to provide any evidence that the pig, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, was haram to any PEOPLE, ayat 55 makes it use for the Muslim halal.
Ah, ANOTHER coherent paragraph. Two in a row, you've really evolved beyond neanderthal now!
Ad hominem and rambling on, but no Quranic refutation of my assertion. Hopefully, one day, you will come to understand that just typing and posting whatever comes into your..."mind", is not refutation. How did you forward your position that the pig is haram in this Deen by the above? LOL!...you didn't! My above comment to you still stands...bring your convincing borhan/proof. Provide the Quranic evidence and can your "thoughts".
In addition, the pig could not have been one of them, because pigs do not have claws.
CLAWS? Who said it meant claws?
Typical. You really should pick up a dictionary now and then. Who knows, you may benefit from it. Look it up for yourself, because I'm tired of spoon-feeding you.
PBM Them why is it haram?
Al-quraan says 'all tayyib fool is halal', therefore what isn't halal must be khabith since tayyib is the opposite of khabith.
You didn't answer the question...can't answer it can you? The question was/is...why, Quranically, according to your..."logic", is the pig haram? Take your time answering, just next time please answer the question...if you can.
PBM What, does Allah simply makes things haram arbitrarily and ask us to comply? If so, then He is demanding blind following and that certainly isn't His way. Allah, per ayat 6146, explains that He made certain foods haram to a certain people due to their haveing transgressed. He made that which dies of itself haram, because it is rijsun. So, again, where does He explain why the meat of pig is haram? Your use of logic in regard to yourself...is an oxymoron, dude.
Well, I've given you the reason above but if you want to presume to act like how your priestly name suggests, that's your problem. I don't question Allah because I trust the Book bil haqq.
I told you when you called me whimpering that you were talking about yourself! Aren't you embarrassed yet at posting such absolutely lame and ineffectual stuff? Can't answer the my question Quranically can you? What, do you really believe any rational person is going to accept such a dumb response as that?! Rational people know that Allah rejects blind following, however, apparently, you haven't grasped this concept yet.
PBM SOME people preceding Al-Quran and, whoever they were, Allah made haram to them certain food items which, previous to their transgressing, were halal. In addition, the pig could not have been one of them, because pigs do not have claws. Given that you have not been able to provide any evidence that the pig, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, was haram to any PEOPLE, ayat 55 makes it use for the Muslim halal.
Hehe, no wonder your name is PRIEST Bok Mei despite al-quraan DENOUNCING priesthoods. You first start with a rubbish understanding of Torah, People of the Book and Jews which you got from SUNNIS. Then when you see it contradicts, you hide behind fake linguistics.
Ad hominem and rambling on, but no Quranic refutation of my assertion. Hopefully, one day, you will come to understand that just typing and posting whatever comes into your..."mind", is not refutation. How did you forward your position that the pig is haram in this Deen by the above? LOL!...you didn't! My above comment to you still stands...bring your convincing borhan/proof. Provide the Quranic evidence and can your "thoughts".
Lets see if you can answer these questions, I will field them one more time for you and keep repeating them until you answer
No. You have yet to answer the following, so please do so. If you refuse to answer with Quranic evidence, then don't bother replying at all, because I am not at all interested in baloney
So, the evidence required of you is
-
Why did Allah, make the pig haram.
-
Provide the evidence where, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, Allah made the pig haram to some peoples or another and why.
-
-
This is my understanding <---- he refused to accept my statements when I told him that's my understanding. He said O.k. then give us the precise Quranic definition of haneefan. I don't went your conjecture as to what its definition is or your theory of what its definition is or what you think its definition. I want to post what you KNOW to be the precise Quranic definition
The haneefan discussion and the khinzeer discussion are different topics. you, apparently, KNOW what haneefan means, this was your posture, however, it was not mine, hence, my understanding. Given that you KNOW what heneefan means, I required you to state what you KNOW, get it? So that you KNOW...I'm stating that the pig is NOT haram, I KNOW this, got it? wink
- PBM the pig, was not haram to the People of the Book i.e the Jews <----typical sunni understanding unfounded in al-quraan. So much for him ranting to others 'I have no idead. My concern is not the history written by man, but what Allah has revealed in Al-Quran.
Here's why he thinks The Pig is ok for us
- He thinks 6/146 refers to the Jews, a racial entity despite al-quraan's denial.
Jews do constitute race, they can be of any race. Don't you even know that?
-
PBM At the time of the Prophet, apparently Jews didn't eat pork (probably woody allen wasnt alive then). I have no idead. My concern is not the history written by man, but what Allah has revealed in Al-Quran.
-
So since the Jews only had 6/146 behind them and 5/5 tells us that people of the book's food is halal for us, therefore the pig wasn't halal at the time and 5/3 refers to rotten meat because al-quraan doesn't contradict itself.
How does the Priest know this? By other than al-quraan despite his rant below
LOL! Weak, very very weak and lame. Don't you realize that, these lame attempts to undermine my Quranic assertion that the pig is not haram, simply fails miserably? How did you forward you position that the pig is haram in this Deen by the above? LOL! you didn't! You just love to waste time and bandwith, don't you? lol
WHAT UTTER RUBBISH.
I havent seen such chop-up-the-book interpretations since my analysis of sunnism. Sunnis love to present verses upon verses but use thier unquranic understanding to actually render those verses relevant. To them, this makes thier argument 'sound'. PBM is the worst kind of sunni, the kind who pretends he's quranic.
Ad hominem and rambling on, but no Quranic refutation of my assertion. Hopefully, one day, you will come to understand that just typing and posting whatever comes into your..."mind", is not refutation. How did you forward your position that the pig is haram in this Deen by the above? LOL!...you didn't! My above comment to you still stands...bring your convincing borhan/proof. Provide the Quranic evidence and can your "thoughts".
-
He asserts that 6/146 apparently is about Jews. Al-quraan has never rendered 'alladhina haadu' as jews. Not once. Rather, it gives them behavioural patterns so we can identify them (e.g. 4/46). PBM got it from his sunni buddies.
-
He asserts 'the jews' are 'people of the book'. Another deduction the Priest has to go OUTSIDE al-quraan. Nowhere does al-quraan call 'alladhina haadu' as 'alladhina uutul kitaab'. Nowhere at all.
-
He asserts that, at the time of the prophet, jews didn't eat pork. Once again, we can't possibly know this unless we looked outside al-quraan.
-
He asserts that 'the jews' didn't recieve the same instructions as the ones al-quraan gives. IF in fact 'the jews at the time of the prophet' were the remnants of the people Musa led and IF its the same Musa of al-quraan, then Musa must have forbidden to them pork as well because Muhammad was told Nothing is said to thee that was not said to the apostles before thee (41/43)
All nabiyeen brought AL-KITAAB BIL HAQQ (2/213). Therefore if the Jews in Medina didn't eat thier ham-on-ryes, they must have following Musa's teachings.
Rambling on, but no Quranic refutation of my assertion. Hopefully, one day, you will come to understand that just typing and posting whatever comes into your..."mind", is not refutation. How did you forward your position that the pig is haram in this Deen by the above? LOL!...you didn't! My above comment to you still stands...bring your convincing borhan/proof. Provide the Quranic evidence and can your "thoughts".
PBM ACKNOWLEDGES that lahmul khinzeer could mean 'the meat of pig'There's no problem here. Of course khinzeer means pig in the Arabic language, however, it also means that which is ill-seeming/that which is seen as bad. Now, the question is...which definition did Allah choose for His Quran? Well, ayats 4160, 55, and 61146, absolutely precludes the animal pig definition. You haven't been able to refute this conclusion yet.
So in other words, IF 6/146 , 5/5 and 4/160 fails to uphold PBM's need for pork pie's, he's left with nothing to stand on.
Exactly, so, what are you waiting for?...refute them! Leave me with nothing to stand on, please! lol Look, your simply restating my position isn't going to prove you assertion that, the pig is haram in this Deen...hasn't this dawned on yet?
He then (very 'generously') rescinds on his jews and ppl of the book reasoning and says
PBM Listen, if you don't want to accept that the people of the book includes Jews and that is who is being referred to in ayats 4160 and 6146, fine, no problem., I'll give you that. However, those ayats are referring to SOME people preceding Al-Quran and, whoever they were, Allah made haram to them food items which, previous to their transgressing, were halal. In addition, the pig could not have been one of them, because pigs do not have claws. Given that you have not been able to provide any evidence that the pig, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, was haram to any PEOPLE, ayat 55 makes it use for the Muslim halal.
The guy's brain must have short-circuited during while putting on his cassock!
Ad hominem and rambling on, but no Quranic refutation of my assertion. Hopefully, one day, you will come to understand that just typing and posting whatever comes into your..."mind", is not refutation. How did you forward your position that the pig is haram in this Deen by the above? LOL!...you didn't! My above comment to you still stands...bring your convincing borhan/proof. Provide the Quranic evidence and can your "thoughts".
Now his reasoning is . However, those ayats are referring to SOME people preceding Al-Quran and, whoever they were, Allah made haram to them food items which, previous to their transgressing, were halal.
Agreed. It does refer to some people. And if you think dhufrin means 'claws', it must therefore 6/146 must therefore exclude the pig. Note that I said 6/146 and not any other verse.
LOL! Whaaa?? the hell are you talking about, dude?? I have no idea what you said, please rephrase, thanks. Are you and Jaxal hang-out buddies?
PBM Given that you have not been able to provide any evidence that the pig, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, was haram to any PEOPLE, ayat 55 makes it use for the Muslim halal
So Muslims only read 6/146 and seeing that it doesnt include pork, 5/5 makes everything ok? Half-a-quran believer strikes again!
What about 5/3 and the like. Without your 'jew' and 'people of the book' nonsense, lahmul khizeer is very clearly 'meat of pig'. You wrote it yourself
Nope, whether it is Jew or not is not essential to my assertion. Some people or another, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, were forbidden to eat animals with claws and fat of sheep and oxen. You will notic that, whoever they are, they were not forbidden toe at the pig, because pigs don't have claws. Now, I realize that you believe pigs have wings, thus, your belief that they have claws to. This, while understandable, is wrong thinking,, but I know you will deny it lol . Whoever these people are, ayat, 55, makes their food halal to us and vice versa, and, because the pig was not haram prvious to Al-Quran, it is halal post Al-Quran, get it?
PBM There's no problem here. Of course khinzeer means pig in the Arabic language, however, it also means that which is ill-seeming/that which is seen as bad. Now, the question is...which definition did Allah choose for His Quran? Well, ayats 4160, 55, and 61146, absolutely precludes the animal pig definition.
So climb of this historical nonsense. The only way for you to prove your point is by resorting to EXTRA-QURANIC resources.
Ad hominem and rambling on, but no Quranic refutation of my assertion. Hopefully, one day, you will come to understand that just typing and posting whatever comes into your..."mind", is not refutation. How did you forward your position that the pig is haram in this Deen by the above? LOL!...you didn't! My above comment to you still stands...bring your convincing borhan/proof. Provide the Quranic evidence and can your "thoughts".
You have yet to answer the following, so please do so. If you refuse to answer with Quranic evidence, then don't bother replying at all, because I am not at all interested in your baloney
The evidence required of you is
-
Why did Allah, make the pig haram.
-
Provide the evidence where, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, Allah made the pig haram to some peoples or another and why.
-
PRIEST Well, count yourself out. I'm not having a conversation with you, I'm talking down to you, don't you even get that yet? You're simply an amusement
Spoken like a true PRIEST. It's no wonder you named yourself that.
AMUSEMENT? God told us to leave aside those who take ad-deen to be an amusement So I will answer this post and if you don't provide evidence, I'll leave it at that. THanks for exposing your true colours.
I see you continue to indulge in the same same activity as Jaxal, because you cannot even remember what you say. You're comment to me was
Quote
mquran Funny. The ENTIRE Arabic speaking world calls al-khinzeer the pig. If you deny this assertion of the Arabic language, PROVE ITYou didn't refer to Al-Quran, but the Arabic language, hence, my reply to you was dead on accurate. Pull yourself together, will you.
Ah sorry, I forgot I was talking to you. I'll break it down so that even a monkey can understand it, so you'll have to struggle, just a bit
- The Quran is in CLEAR ARABIC LANGUAGE
THEREFORE - We acquire its meanings from the living Arabic in the world
HOWEVER - Al-quraan is our al-furqaan
THEREFORE - IF the meaning contradicts quranic usage (like 5/106 contradicts 'ritual prayer'), then it can't be correct.
Now, does 'lahmul khinzeer' as 'meat of the pig' contradict ANY Quranic verses?
If you don't get it after this, then maybe we can get some crayons for you.
Oh, I see, it's made up! LOL! My God, is there no bottom to your denial? A dumb question I know, because you will only deny that you are in denial...the chief symptom of denial. Anyway refer yourself to the Dictionary of the Holy Quran, Omar, pg. 166
So 'omars dictionary' is your furqaan? Wonderful. The truth is, you'll take any source (torah included) to be your furqaan if it serves your lust for destruction of the sunni creed. You didn't come into al-islaam to learn and evolve but to be a fanatical anti-sunni. That's why your thread asserts they're not muslim DESPITE the Qurans command not to follow that which you have no knowledge. The sad thing is, this time , the sunnis actually did follow al-quraan and you didn't
Show me IN THE QURAN (not some dictionary) where 'khanz' is used. If you can't, then the word ISN'T in Quranic diction. I should think even people like you can grasp that.
Typical. You really should pick up a dictionary now and then. Who knows, you may benefit from it. Look it up for yourself, because I'm tired of spoon-feeding you.
A question why don't you choose HOOVES? Dhufrin can mean hooves. Please provide Quranic evidence (i.e. not Omar's dictionary) to show it can't possibly mean hooves.
You didn't answer the question...can't answer it can you? The question was/is...why, Quranically, according to your..."logic", is the pig haram? Take your time answering, just next time please answer the question...if you can.
Whew, you need to dig the sleep out of your eyes. Allah said 'all tayyib is halal'. Lahmul khizeer is haraam, therefore it CANNOT be tayyib. Or have you put 5/5 as a historical verse for the jews as well ?
The haneefan discussion and the khinzeer discussion are different topics. you, apparently, KNOW what haneefan means, this was your posture, however, it was not mine, hence, my understanding. Given that you KNOW what heneefan means, I required you to state what you KNOW, get it? So that you KNOW...I'm stating that the pig is NOT haram, I KNOW this, got it?
Well, Quranically, you GUESS this, got it?
The haneefan discussion simply shows your lack of the ability to keep being civil. You mentioned Muhammad because you thought it would rile up my sensitivites. That's why I said you're only good for Sunnis but when it comes to Quranic discussion, you're at a total loss. You have no idea how the heck the Quran explains itself,
Jews do constitute race, they can be of any race. Don't you even know that?
By that logic, even Muslims are racial? Do me a favour! Al-quraan defines who 'alladhina haadu' are. You have another explanation from man-made books?
A last question to you. If you answer this, I will continue. If not, I need to obey God and ignore you since you mock his ayaat.
Was Lahumul Khinzeer forbade BEFORE THE DESCENT OF AL-QURAAN? Simple yes or no question. We'll see now how sincere you are.
- The Quran is in CLEAR ARABIC LANGUAGE
-
PRIEST Well, count yourself out. I'm not having a conversation with you, I'm talking down to you, don't you even get that yet? You're simply an amusement
Spoken like a true PRIEST. It's no wonder you named yourself that. AMUSEMENT? God told us to leave aside those who take ad-deen to be an amusement So I will answer this post and if you don't provide evidence, I'll leave it at that. THanks for exposing your true colours.
Once again, you've demonstrated an inability to correctly comprehend what is said to you. I didn't say I found the Deen of Allah amusing, I said I find YOU to be an amusement. Please strive to get things right in the future, will you?
PBMI see you continue to indulge in the same same activity as Jaxal, because you cannot even remember what you say. You're comment to me was
mquran Funny. The ENTIRE Arabic speaking world calls al-khinzeer the pig. If you deny this assertion of the Arabic language, PROVE IT
PBM You didn't refer to Al-Quran, but the Arabic language, hence, my reply to you was dead on accurate. Pull yourself together, will you.
Ah sorry, I forgot I was talking to you. I'll break it down so that even a monkey can understand it, so you'll have to struggle, just a bit
LOL! you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, so how in the world are you going to break anything down? You shouldn't disparage monkey's either, because unlike yourself, even they know pigs don't have claws lol. My goodness, the monkeys would find you amusing lol
- The Quran is in CLEAR ARABIC LANGUAGE
Agreed.
THEREFORE 2. We acquire its meanings from the living Arabic in the world
HOWEVER-
Al-quraan is our al-furqaan
THEREFORE -
IF the meaning contradicts quranic usage (like 5/106 contradicts 'ritual prayer'), then it can't be correct.
Now, does 'lahmul khinzeer' as 'meat of the pig' contradict ANY Quranic verses?
Of course your "understanding" of khinzeer contradicts another ayat
560 Say Shall I inform you of (him who is) worse than this in retribution from Allah? (Worse is he) whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine, and he who served the Shaitan; these are worse in place and more erring from the straight path.
Did Allah, actually, transform human beings into...the animal pigs?
If you don't get it after this, then maybe we can get some crayons for you.
Hopefully, in the future, you will express yourself clearly. Btw, don't worry about getting me crayons, you should be more concerned about running out of paper and paint for your finger painting and dirt and water for your mud pies, don't you think? lol.
So 'omars dictionary' is your furqaan? Wonderful. The truth is, you'll take any source (torah included) to be your furqaan if it serves your lust for destruction of the sunni creed. You didn't come into al-islaam to learn and evolve but to be a fanatical anti-sunni. That's why your thread asserts they're not muslim DESPITE the Qurans command not to follow that which you have no knowledge. The sad thing is, this time , the sunnis actually did follow al-quraan and you didn't )
Hmm...tell us, were you born with the definitions of terms, if not, how do you find out their definitions? It is because you don't consult dictionaries that you ask the dumb question..."why can't thufr mean divided hoof"? With each succeeding post, you prove more and more to all that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You really should stop posting for awhile and go and get yourself together.
Show me IN THE QURAN (not some dictionary) where 'khanz' is used. If you can't, then the word ISN'T in Quranic diction. I should think even people like you can grasp that
.Main Entry KHANIZA The Dictionary of the Holy Quran, Omar, pg. 166. Now, I've given you the book and page number now go and look up its meaning.
Whew, you need to dig the sleep out of your eyes. Allah said 'all tayyib is halal'. Lahmul khizeer is haraam, therefore it CANNOT be tayyib. Or have you put 5/5 as a historical verse for the jews as well ?
LOL! There is no question that lahmal khinzeer is haram. The reality is however that, it doesn't mean pig! Pigs don't have claws, remember? It is simply pitiful how such an obvious reality eludes you.
The haneefan discussion and the khinzeer discussion are different topics. you, apparently, KNOW what haneefan means, this was your posture, however, it was not mine, hence, my understanding. Given that you KNOW what heneefan means, I required you to state what you KNOW, get it? So that you KNOW...I'm stating that the pig is NOT haram, I KNOW this, got it?
Well, Quranically, you GUESS this, got it?
Huh??
The haneefan discussion simply shows your lack of the ability to keep being civil. You mentioned Muhammad because you thought it would rile up my sensitivites. That's why I said you're only good for Sunnis but when it comes to Quranic discussion, you're at a total loss. You have no idea how the heck the Quran explains itself.
Bring civil?! How would I know what would rile your sensibilites?? Unlike you, I can't read your mind. I'm not trying to rile you sensibilites, I'm trying to stimulate you to think past tradition and look at the reality of things. Of course, in your case, I continue to fail. If you are so easily riled, then obviously you are not mature enough emotionally to participate in adult conversation and you should remove yourself from the discussion. As far as the knowing how Al-Quran explains itself, I know it doesn't state pig is haram and i have proved this time and again.
PBM Jews do constitute race, they can be of any race. Don't you even know that?
By that logic, even Muslims are racial? Do me a favour! Al-quraan defines who 'alladhina haadu' are. You have another explanation from man-made books?
My God, you have no regard for truth or reality at all, do you?. Lisaten, Jew and Muslim, are not races, can you comprehend that?
A last question to you. If you answer this, I will continue. If not, I need to obey God and ignore you since you mock his ayaat.
The only mocker of ayats around here is you. Again, please stop assigning your character defects to me, thanks.
I told you before, you need to answer the following in order to defend your assertion that, khinzeer, in Al-Quran, means pig. The more you continue to evade these questions, then more you prove to all that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
The evidence required of you is
-
Why did Allah, make the pig haram.
-
Provide the evidence where, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, Allah made the pig haram to some peoples or another and why.
Until you can provide a lucid and coherent Quranic answer these questions, you have no case and are just rambling and blustering on and on and on and on and on....
Btw, enough already with the jabs and barbs...they are a distraction and are doing nothing to advance this discussion. If you must persist, then I will drop out before I say something really harsh to you and get banned.
-
I knew you'd avoid the question ). A kafir is one who conceals the truth when it comes to him. Well done. Thanks for showing us who you really are.
The question still stands Was Lahumul Khinzeer forbade BEFORE THE DESCENT OF AL-QURAAN?
LOL! who do you really think you are kidding, other than yourself of course? Listen and get this, you and that vast majority of those who identify themselves as Muslins, claim that khinzeerin in Al-Quran means the animal pig and this is what you will tell all those who ask you what khinzeer means in Al-Quran, thus, you are speaking in Allah's name. With this in mind then, as I told you before, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO PROVE YOUR CLAIM, which you make in Allah's name. This is why Allah says in ayat 733 that, it haram to say anything of Allah unless you have certitude. I, the challenger of your assertion, don't have to prove anything. My role is to challenge/test yours and the majority of those who identify themelves as Muslim's, so-called "knowledge". To date, you have not proven your assertion and simply saying that Allah forbids the pig and that's that without His giving an explanation, is just sheer foolishness and blind following, hence, if you continue to claim that khinzeerin means the animal pig in Al-Quran, then you are a deceiver. If you wish to avoid such an opprobrious moniker as deceiver, then all you have to do is the following
The evidence required of you is
-
Why did Allah, make the pig haram.
-
Provide the evidence where, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, Allah made the pig haram to some peoples or another and why.
Until you can provide a lucid and coherent Quranic answer these questions, then the heel of ayat 55 remains deeply embedded in the back of your neck, your claim is proven fraudulent, and you are just rambling, blustering, and deceiving.
Looking forward to your...evidence. wink
-
-
LOL! who do you really think you are kidding, other than yourself of course? Listen and get this, you and that vast majority of those who identify themselves as Muslins, claim that khinzeerin in Al-Quran means the animal pig and this is what you will tell all those who ask you what khinzeer means in Al-Quran, thus, you are speaking in Allah's name. With this in mind then, as I told you before, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO PROVE YOUR CLAIM, which you make in Allah's name. This is why Allah says in ayat 733 that, it haram to say anything of Allah unless you have certitude. I, the challenger of your assertion, don't have to prove anything. My role is to challenge/test yours and the majority of those who identify themelves as Muslim's, so-called "knowledge". To date, you have not proven your assertion and simply saying that Allah forbids the pig and that's that without His giving an explanation, is just sheer foolishness and blind following, hence, if you continue to claim that khinzeerin means the animal pig in Al-Quran, then you are a deceiver. If you wish to avoid such an opprobrious moniker as deceiver, then all you have to do is the following
Poor guy, unable to read. Your anti-sunni psychosis is getting the better of you turning you into a (bigger) rambling fool. The question is
Was Lahumul Khinzeer forbade BEFORE THE DESCENT OF AL-QURAAN ?
Did I translate lahumul khinzeer? You claim 'lahumul khinzeer' wasn't forbidden at the time of Muhammad, being the closet sunni that you are
Was Lahumul Khinzeer forbade BEFORE THE DESCENT OF AL-QURAAN ?
Can't answer it, can you
-
Mquran,
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO PROVE YOUR CLAIM, which you make in Allah's name. This is why Allah says in ayat 733 that, it haram to say anything of Allah unless you have certitude. I, the challenger of your assertion, don't have to prove anything. My role is to challenge/test yours and the majority of those who identify themelves as Muslim's, so-called "knowledge". To date, you have not proven your assertion and simply saying that Allah forbids the pig and that's that without His giving an explanation, is just sheer foolishness and blind following, hence, if you continue to claim that khinzeerin means the animal pig in Al-Quran, then you are a deceiver. If you wish to avoid such an opprobrious moniker as deceiver, then all you have to do is the following
The evidence required of you is
-
Why did Allah, make the pig haram.
-
Provide the evidence where, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, Allah made the pig haram to some peoples or another and why.
Until you can provide a lucid and coherent Quranic answer these questions, then the heel of ayat 55 remains deeply embedded in the back of your neck, your claim is proved fraudulent, and you are just rambling, blustering, and deceiving people.
-
-
Hehe, poor guy. Its ok, its my duty to struggle against ppl like you (48/29) alongside the messenger. Here's the question again with the Quranic answer
Was Lahumul Khinzeer forbade BEFORE THE DESCENT OF AL-QURAAN ?
If one believes in al-quraan, UNLIKE Priest Bokmei the closet Sunni, the answer is YES.
All nabiyeen brought the SAME TEACHINGS (2/213) and Muhammad was told that NOTHING was said to him that wasn't said before (41/43)
Therefore LAHUMUL KHINZEER was always forbidden.
I know , i know , I should be more sympathetic to people with 'faeces-in-the-brain'-itis