Alkhineer is a noun in the light of the Reading
-
Salam mquran, Ali Omar, all,
Salaamun alaikum Marie,
Is there a mu'jam/concordance detailling grammatical forms like how you're quoting below? Or did you find the tanwin-ending words from your memory? If that's the case, wow and good job!
This is my own analysis of the writing of the words in the Reading. The Reading itself provides the rules of its internal structure. 6145 is a good example to anderstand the statute of khinzeer for the word "lahm" by analyzing what is written before and after. One can see a great logic in this internal structure.
But I can not quite follow your statement about the need of lahm to be written with an alif in order to be followed by an adjective.
The internal structure of the Reading is based on great logic, if khinzeer is an adjective for "lahm", then "lahm" must be ended with alif like 1)daman masfoohan before and 2) "fisqan" after.
Lahma khinzeerin (6145) is the same sentence than lahmu alkhinzeeri (53) and lahma alkhinzeeri (2173, 16115). All these verses are under a rule determined by the internal struture of the Reading and prove that alkhinzeer is a noon and not an adjective.
4912 illustrates the same structure than "Lahma khinzeerin" (6145); "lahma akheehi" means lahm of his brother. akhee is not an adjectve for lahma in the same way than khinzeer for lahm.
Both khinzeerin and akheehi are with alksra (i). Based on the writing of Akheehi, this word cannot be read in other way such as "akhahu" or "akhoohu" because of the letter ya () which is between the letter "kh"/ and "ha"/ in the word , once again the Reading provides how to read the words which have the same statute after the word "lahm". Praise to the God, the criterion is inside the Reading.As far as I know there is nothing wrong in saying, for instance, lahm ladhiidh (delicious meat) so I fail to understand why it can not also be said lahm khinzeer meaning meat that seems anything BUT delicious.
OK, It is not upon us to choose how to read this sentence, because the internal structure of the Readind fixes the rule.
According the rule applied to what is said before "lahma khinzeerin", this sentence cannot be read lahmin khinzeerin or lahmun khinzeerun because the rule is fixed and illustrated by the writing of "daman masfoohan" before "lahma khinzeerin" and "fisqan" after it.
If some doubt remains about the statute of khinzeer in 6145, then according the satatue of alkhinzeer in 53, 2173 and 16115, this doubt collapses definitively.
See the example given in 6146, the cattle/albaqari and the sheep/alghanami are the noun for the fat like alkinzeer or the meat.
The internal struture of the Reading is is marvelously tied up by the God ) -
Salaamun alaikum Marie,
This is my own analysis of the writing of the words in the Reading. The Reading itself provides the rules of its internal structure. 6145 is a good example to anderstand the statute of khinzeer for the word "lahm" by analyzing what is written before and after. One can see a great logic in this internal structure.
Well done, then )
I have a mu'jam for the roots, of course but not for the grammar forms. I have begun compilation for the various wazn (questions like what is it 'kafir' but not 'mukfir' like why isn't 'salim' but 'muslim') but of course, that's a huge task.
-
Dear Marie,
I still fail to see what you see, concerning grammar of the quranic text, but that may of course be due to my own shortcomings on the subject.
Grammar is most definitely not my ?thing? ? , which makes it even more difficult for me, but I do try.You say that your understanding of verse 6.145 is due to the internal structure of the quran, and quite frankly I do not find the internal structure to be that simple.
If it was not up to us to choose how to read a word in a sentence, then what you say is that diacritical marks should not have been put into the quran in the first place. I would say that I kind of agree with you there.There are numerous examples where only the vowel signs guides the pronunciation of a combination of nouns and adjectives, like
7.59 albaladu alttayyibu = good/pure land
Without the ?u?-sound at the end the words could be thought to have different endings.
And even with the diacritical marks in place they are put in such a way that the words have different endings like
7.64 qawman Aameena = misguided nation
and so on.
I would love to have it as simple as you claim, but, like I said, I fail to see it.
However I will, when I find time to do it, try to find out more, even with my rather inadequate knowledge of grammar.
In the meantime, I would be grateful if you would continue to inform me concerning your findings.scholarRegards
Ali Omar
-
Peace,
What is flawed in this analysis is the ?AW?, ?or?. The use of aw as opposed to ?am? is a clue to the contents of the list.
This is the same rule used in 6145 and it is independently of diacritical marks, In 6145, maytatan or daman or lahma or fisqan represent a sequence with the same statute insithe the verse and are under the same rule.
The subject in 6145 is the prohibited food which is
maytatan
aw/or
daman /
aw/or
lahma..
aw/or
fisqan /
etcAW indicates an alternate similitude. AM indicates a alternate different proposition.
The use of aw indicates the items on the list are similar and related to condition, in other words, not sanctioned by nature but by condition, fisqan.
-
Salam Ali Omar,
You say that your understanding of verse 6.145 is due to the internal structure of the quran, and quite frankly I do not find the internal structure to be that simple.
This is not my understanding but the internal structure doesn't let us another choice to read the verse differently than "lahma khinzeerin" for different reasons
In 6145, there is a sequence of a prohibited foods
1 or 2 or 3 or 4....(1)maytatan or 2)daman masfoohan or 3)lahma khinzeerin or 3)fisqan)...These prohibited foods have the same statute in the verse, then they should be under the same rule.
2 (daman) and 4 (fisqan) illustrate through their writing how we have to read them.
3 (lahm khinzeer) cannot be read in the same manner than 2 (daman masfoohan) because the alif at the end of daman and masfoohan is missing at the end of lahm and khinzeer.
Since lahm has the same statute than daman and fisqan, we read it with alftha (a) i.e. "lahma".
About khinzeer, the Reading itself shows us the rule which governed the word after lahma (see my last post).If we consider lahm khinzeer outside the context of this verse, one can think that khinzeer can be an adjective for lahm like your last example "lahm ladhid/delecious meat".
This is why we have to consider the satute of each word regarding to what is said before and after. The internal structure is based on logic not on anarchy.
One cannot read the verse like "maytatun or damanan masfoohan or lahmin khinzeerin/lahmun khinzeerun or fisqan""Daman masfoohan" and "fisqan" are like beacons on a road which indicate the curve to be followed. Let us not forget that this listed food have the same statute in the verse. Tanween is not for the design but each vowel illustrates a specific statute for each word.
Below another similar example
9.24 Say If your 1) fathers, and 2) your sons, and 3) your brothers, and 4) your wives, and 5) your clan, and 6) money
9.24 Qul in kana 1) abaokum wa 2) abnaokum wa 3)-ikhwanukum wa 4) azwajukum wa 5) AAasheeratukum wa 6) amwalun...In 924, fathers, sons, brothers, wives, clan, money have the same statute in the verse and they are under the same rule. Moreover 1) abaokum and 2) abnaokum are the beacons to be followed. According their writing, they have only one reading, abaokum and abnaokum and not aba-ikum/aba-akum and abna-ikum/abna-akum
According the internal structure of the Reading, the subject after the article "kana/yakoonu" is with the vowel "u" called alddama and the two beacons 1) and 2) confirm it (924). And the word which specifies the subject is with the vowel "a) called alfatha (see 6145, 2278 in my last post)
There are numerous examples where only the vowel signs guides the pronunciation of a combination of nouns and adjectives, like
7.58 albaladu alttayyibu = good/pure land
The vowel "u" depends on the statute of albalad in this verse, please analyse by yourself what is common between all the words with the same statute, you will anderstand GW why the vowel "u" is used instead of another vowel.
Independently of diacritical marks, alttayib is an adjective of albalad; the two words started with al.
According the context, this sentense can be read as albaladi alttayyibi or albaladu alttayyibu or albalada alttayyiba. Whatever their endeing, alttayyib always remains an adjective for albaladOther examples
2229 albayti alAAateeqi / the ancient sanctuaryIn 2229 albayt doesn't have the same statute than albalad in 758, but both alttayyib/pure/good and alAAateeqi/ancient are the adjectives for albalad/land and albayt/housse/sanctuary. They have the same writing independtly of their satutes and diacritical marks
albayt alAAateeq
albalad alttayyibAnd even with the diacritical marks in place they are put in such a way that the words have different endings like
7.64 qawman Aameena = misguided nationAccording the writing of qawman and AAameen, they have only one reading qawman and not qawmun and AAameena and not AAamoona (2766)
Aameen is a specific case, may be you expect to read "qawman Aameen" with the same vowel "a"Aameen is the plural form of aAAma ().
According the context, one can use AAameen/ or AAamoon/ like in 2766.The plural form of in the same way than can be written only in two manners 1) and 2)
(singular form),1) and 2) (plural form)
muslim/ (singular form), 1) muslimeen/ and 2) muslimoon/ (the plural form), you can found several examples in the Reading.There is a specific thing with , one cannot use it in the singular form with the vowel "u" or the vowel "i" like basser / the seer (650). This caracteristic is due to the letter
I would love to have it as simple as you claim, but, like I said, I fail to see it.
You should persevere and you will see GW the logic which controls the insternal structural of the Reading.
In the meantime, I would be grateful if you would continue to inform me concerning your findings
You are most welcome. The question is often more interesting than the answer. Please if you have another question, I will be glad to discuss it with you in the light of the Reading.
May the God improve our understanding.
Salam
-
Salam Grourself,
The use of aw indicates the items on the list are similar and related to condition, in other words, not sanctioned by nature but by condition, fisqan.
Thanks for your clarification and this is what I meant by statute. Because of my poor english, it is diificult for me to find the good words.
-
Peace,
Peace,
This similar conditional aspect "aw" excludes lahma khinzeer as being a creature. It is the condition of the lahma that is similar to flowing blood and carrion.
Sorry for the confusion, we don't speak at all about the same thing. When I say that these prohibited foods have the same statute in 6145 that doesn't mean any similitude between them.
For example, the subject in different sentences can be different thing 'human or animal or vegetal or house or rock...), they represent the subject in their respective sentences. this is what I call the same statute of some words.
The use of aw indicates the items on the list are similar and related to condition,
I don't agree, Aw/Or can indicate an alternate different propositions. You can find several examples in the Reading.
443 wa-in kuntum marda aw AAala safarin aw jaa ahadun minkum mina algha-iti aw lamastumu alnnisaa
And if you are ill or traveling, or one of you has excreted feces, or you had sexual contact with the women589 fakaffaratuhu itAAamu AAasharati masakeena min awsati ma tutAAimoona ahleekum aw kiswatuhum aw tahreeru raqabatin
its cancellation shall be the feeding of ten poor from the average of what you feed your family, or that you clothe them, or that you free a slave;1331 Walaw anna qur-anan suyyirat bihialjibalu aw quttiAAat bihi al-ardu aw kullima bihi almawta
And if a Quran were to be used to move mountains, or to slice the Earth, or the dead were spoken to with it.-
And they said We will not believe to you until you cause a spring of water to burst from the land
Waqaloo lan nu/mina laka hattatafjura lana mina al-ardi yanbooAAan -
Or that you have a garden of palm trees and grapes, and you cause gushing rivers to burst through it.
Aw takoona laka jannatun min nakheelinwaAAinabin fatufajjira al-anhara khilalahatafjeeran -
Or that you make the heaven fall upon us in pieces as you claimed, or that you bring God and the Angels before us.
Aw tusqita alssamaa kamazaAAamta AAalayna kisafan aw ta/tiya biAllahiwaalmala-ikati qabeelan -
Or that you have a luxurious mansion, or that you can ascend into the heavens. And we will not believe in your ascension unless you bring for us a record that we can study. Say Glory be to my Lord. Am I anything other than a human messenger!
Aw yakoona laka baytun min zukhrufin aw tarqafee alssama-i walan nu/mina liruqiyyika hattatunazzila AAalayna kitaban naqraohu qul subhanarabbee hal kuntu illa basharan rasoolan
Salam
-
-
Dear Marie,
I believe Grourself is on to something here.
The ?aw? indicates same conditional aspects before and after the word. I.e.
443 mentions various specific conditions you are in.
589 mentions specific actions you do.
1331 mentions specific actions by means of the quran.
1790-93 mention specific conditions to render you above others.6.145 mentions in general terms anything dead, any running blood, anything dedicated to other than God.
If we put in ?lahm khinzeerin? as ?flesh of pig? it is a specific item, not general like the other expressions, and therefore not in conformity with what is said before and after ?aw?.As I have mentioned, I have forgotten most things concerning grammar, therefore excuse me if my reasoning is not according to grammatical rules.
I would like to have your comments on this aspect of the verses.Regds
Ali Omar
-
Peace Ali,
The ?aw? indicates same conditional aspects before and after the word. I.e.
443 mentions various specific conditions you are in.
589 mentions specific actions you do.
1331 mentions specific actions by means of the quran.
1790-93 mention specific conditions to render you above others.6.145 mentions in general terms anything dead, any running blood, anything dedicated to other than God.
If we put in ?lahm khinzeerin? as ?flesh of pig? it is a specific item, not general like the other expressions, and therefore not in conformity with what is said before and after ?aw?.Good understanding Ali, though much in the same mutually inclusive reasoning as in yours, I had stated earlier
The blood (not specific to any animal), dead animals (not specific to any animal), carrion (not specific to any animal), gouged/thrusted/extorted meat (not specific to any animal), meat that is dedicated to other than GOD (not specific to any animal) and finally, the ill-seeming meat (not specific to any animal) are all that is required for our abstinence and all carry logical reasons. In 6145, pig?s meat is not contaminated by nature/origin but ill-seeming meat is? Why the animal pig???
On a sideline, even alcohol (not specific to any brand or brewery), gambling (not specific to casinos), lying/hatred/jealousy/anger/deceit/gossip/conjecture/cheat/etc (not specific to any circumstance or event) are all ordainments to forbearance/restrictions. Allah, the merciful, has allowed all such restrictions only on grounds of survival.
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4031&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=400
-
Salam Ali Omar, Danish, all,
The aw indicates same conditional aspects before and after the word. I.e.
I disagree with your understanding.
443 mentions various specific conditions you are in.
The four cases enumerated in 443 concern each of us like the prohibited foods (6145) concern each eater. The difference between these two verses is that in the condition "illa an yakoon/except that it be" in 6145, yakoona refers to the prohibited food. And the conditionin 443 "wa-in kuntum /And if you are", kuntum refers to us.
The four cases enumerated in 443 are not similar; does ill = travelling, does "you has excreted feces" = "you had sexual contact with the women"...etc ?.
The common point between the prohibited food (6145) is each of these prohibited food is unpure for one eater (rijsun). And the common point between the four cases in 443 is that they are not pure to abserve the salat ).The common condition between " ill or traveling, or one of you has excreted feces, or you had sexual contact with the women" is "and could not find water then you shall make ablution with clean soil by wiping your faces and hands".
Aw/or (6145) is similar than wa/and (16115, 2173).
- Say I do not find in what is inspired to me forbidden to a one eater to eat except that it be already dead, or running blood, or the meat of pig, it"the prohibited food" is foul/unhealthy/unpure; or what is corruptly dedicated to other than God. Whoever is forced without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.
Qul la ajidu feema oohiyailayya muharraman AAala taAAimin yatAAamuhu illa an yakoona maytatan aw daman masfoohan aw lahma khinzeerin fa-innahu rijsun aw fisqan ohilla lighayri Allahibihi famani idturra ghayra baghin wala AAadinfa-inna rabbaka ghafoorun raheemun
- O you who believe, do not come near the contact-method while you are drunk, until you know what you are saying. Nor dirty, except if travelling, until you wash. And if you are ill or traveling, or one of you has excreted feces, or you had sexual contact with the women, and could not find water then you shall make ablution with clean soil by wiping your faces and hands. God is Pardoning, Forgiving.
Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoola taqraboo alssalata waantum sukarahatta taAAlamoo ma taqooloona walajunuban illa AAabiree sabeelin hattataghtasiloo wa-in kuntum marda aw AAala safarin awjaa ahadun minkum mina algha-iti aw lamastumualnnisaa falam tajidoo maan fatayammamoo saAAeedantayyiban faimsahoo biwujoohikum waaydeekuminna Allaha kana AAafuwwan ghafooran
589 mentions specific actions you do.
That proves anything.
Are these actions similar ?
Does free a slave = feeding of ten poor?1331 mentions specific actions by means of the quran.
Are these actions similar?
Does the dead were spoken to with it = to slice the Earth?1790-93 mention specific conditions to render you above others.
same question.
Before drawing any conclusion about the meaning of khinzeer (6145), please do consider the whole occurences of this word and the whole Reading (see my first post).
Thanks
Salam
-
PEACE, MARIE,
While you, without a doubt, have a strong foundation in the grammar, it appears that Grouself, Danish, and Ali Omar have renedered the proper grammatical understanding of "aw". I say this, because it is consistent with lahma khinzeerin meaning ill-seeming/that which I see as a bad--a condition. This understanding is also consistent ayats 4160, 55, 2228, and 6146, in that, both explanations support each other in that the pig is not haram. Your understanding of "aw", which sounds reasonable, still does not render the answer to the most important question relative to your assertion that the pig is haram--"why" is the pig, according to Allah, haram? Both you and mquran, have admitted that the pig, by nature/in and of itself, is not rijsun, yet, you continue to claim that it is rijsun for the eater to eat. You, murqan, S. Carrot, Tanveer, JM, and others make these claims in Allah's name, all the while knowing that, you don't know why it is rijsun for the eater to eat thus haram. I really think if you people would really think hard about the following ayats that, out of good conscience, you will step back from your assertions
733 Say the things that my Lord has indeed made haram are shameful deeds...and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge.
1736 And do not pursue/follow that of which you have no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning).
In that, you and your supporters cannot, by way of Al-Quran, explain why the pig is rijsun for the eater to eat, puts you all in direct opposition to the above two ayats. How will you people answer Allah when He questions you on this matter, in light of the fact that, He told you not to pursue/follow something which you have no certitude of. And, it is quite clear that you have no certitude as to why, according to you and your supporters, that the pig is rijsun for the eater to eat. Does this fact give you any pause for concern at all?
Looking forward to your reply.
-
Dear Marie,
Your comments now concerns reason, and I feel more on firm ground here than I do with grammar.
Does free a slave = feeding of ten poor?
Does the dead were spoken to with it = to slice the Earth?
May I ask, in addition?
Does running blood = that which is already dead?
You see, it is not a question of equality in the matter itself; it is a question of similarity in a certain aspect.
589 ..... feeding of ten poor from the average of what you feed your family, or that you clothe them, or that you free a slave
This means that God see your specific actions here similar to one another in this particular aspect. All actions and objects are specific, none are in general terms. It says ?slave?, not just any humans, it says ?ten poor? not just any humans.
1331 And if a Quran were to be used to move mountains, or to slice the Earth, or the dead were spoken to with it.
Here also, God mentions certain specific actions similar to one another in this particular aspect. All actions and objects are specific, none are in general terms. It says ?mountains? not just any object, it says ?Earth? not just any object, it says ?the dead? not just any object.
6.145 Say ?I do not find in what is inspired to me forbidden to a one eater to eat except that it be already dead, or running blood, or the meat of pig, it"the prohibited food" is foul/unhealthy/unpure; or what is corruptly dedicated to other than God.? Whoever is forced without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.
Here God mentions a few objects in general terms that are similar to on another in this particular aspect. Action is specific but all objects are in general, no specific terms. It says ?that which is already dead? meaning any creature that is already dead, it says ?running blood? meaning blood from any creature, it says ?food dedicated to other than God? meaning any creature or others dedicated to God.
If God said ?and the pig? it would not be just any creature it would be a specific type of creature, and the terms therefore not in harmony with each other as in the other cases.Regds
Ali Omar
-
PEACE, ALI OMAR and ALL,
Here God mentions a few objects in general terms that are similar to on another in this particular aspect. Action is specific but all objects are in general, no specific terms. It says ?that which is already dead? meaning any creature that is already dead, it says ?running blood? meaning blood from any creature, it says ?food dedicated to other than God? meaning any creature or others dedicated to God. If God said ?and the pig? it would not be just any creature it would be a specific type of creature, and the terms therefore not in harmony with each other as in the other cases.
A fine point Ali, and why the the animal pig is not being discussed in various ayats cited. Marie, obviously, as with SC, Tanveer and mquran, are all highly intelligent people, so why, despite all of the concrete irrefutable evidence why lahma khinzerin cannot mean the pig, do these people continue to subscribe to the notion that it is? The only think I can up with is, this is an example of the power of prejudice and how it can generate and energize denial and superstition. The pig has been maligned for so many centuries within the so-called Muslim and Jewish world that, even in the face of so much evidence that it is not guilty as charged, many still cannot/won't accept it. Prejudice, then, at this point, is the motive force behind Marie's and the others denial of the evidence and subsequent superstitious position..
Peace.
-
PEACE, ALI OMAR and ALL,
Here God mentions a few objects in general terms that are similar to on another in this particular aspect. Action is specific but all objects are in general, no specific terms. It says ?that which is already dead? meaning any creature that is already dead, it says ?running blood? meaning blood from any creature, it says ?food dedicated to other than God? meaning any creature or others dedicated to God. If God said ?and the pig? it would not be just any creature it would be a specific type of creature, and the terms therefore not in harmony with each other as in the other cases.
A fine point Ali, and why the the animal pig is not being discussed in various ayats cited. Marie, obviously, as with SC, Tanveer and mquran, are all highly intelligent people, so why, despite all of the concrete irrefutable evidence why lahma khinzerin cannot mean the pig, do these people continue to subscribe to the notion that it is? The only think I can up with is, this is an example of the power of prejudice and how it can generate and energize denial and superstition. The pig has been maligned for so many centuries within the so-called Muslim and Jewish world that, even in the face of so much evidence is not is not guilty as charged, many still cannot/won't accept it. Prejudice, then, at this point, is the motive force behind Marie's and the others denial of the evidence and subsequent superstitious position..
Peace.
Khi- Salam. The word "khinzeer" has always been used by Arabs to mean "pig/swine" and is still used to mean so. If you claim that it doesnt youll have to provide evidence that "khinzeer" wasnt used for the pig before the rev. of the Quran. If you claim "lahmul khinzeer" means "bad meat" then let me tell you that swine is bad meat by its very nature. It contains "sutoxin", a chemical which ruins the bones with age, thus being SLOW POISON. Also the swine is an animal which rolls itself in its own dirt. It has one of the strongest immune systems and thus accumulates many harmful diseases which are harmless for its own body. The dangers of pork meat are often hid from the media as it would ruin the meat market. Just type in "dangers of pork" in yahoo or google. And YES, it's ONLY THE FLESH of SWINE which contains these ill features and ofcourse the blood just like the Quran says. Pork also conatins much more saturated fats than other animals thus highly increasing the risk of heart diseases. GOD Bless!
-
PEACE, IDMKHIZAR,
The word "khinzeer" has always been used by Arabs to mean "pig/swine" and is still used to mean so. If you claim that it doesnt youll have to provide evidence that "khinzeer" wasnt used for the pig before the rev. of the Quran.
This is not the issue. I've stated at least 7 times now that khinzeer, in the Arabic language, means pig, however, khinzeer, in the Arabic language, also means--"that which I see as bad/ill-seeming". The question which arise is--which definition does Allah use in His Quran. It cannot mean the animal pig, because ayats 4160, 51, 55, and 6146 rejects any such notion.
If you claim "lahmul khinzeer" means "bad meat" then let me tell you that swine is bad meat by its very nature. It contains "sutoxin", a chemical which ruins the bones with age, thus being SLOW POISON. Also the swine is an animal which rolls itself in its own dirt. It has one of the strongest immune systems and thus accumulates many harmful diseases which are harmless for its own body. The dangers of pork meat are often hid from the media as it would ruin the meat market. Just type in "dangers of pork" in yahoo or google. And YES, it's ONLY THE FLESH of SWINE which contains these ill features and ofcourse the blood just like the Quran says. Pork also conatins much more saturated fats than other animals thus highly increasing the risk of heart diseases.
If this were the case, why then, are billions of people today (and in the past) eating the pig with no health problems at all? Your response does not hold up to the actual evidence. Please read Danish's posts concerning the so-called health issues of the pig (click on to his name under "profile" and read his comments).
Peace.
-
Salam Ali Omar,
You see, it is not a question of equality in the matter itself; it is a question of similarity in a certain aspect.
Your view about the similarity is purely subjective and the Reading doesn't support it.
Here God mentions a few objects in general terms that are similar to on another in this particular aspect. Action is specific but all objects are in general, no specific terms. It says that which is already dead meaning any creature that is already dead, it says running blood meaning blood from any creature, it says food dedicated to other than God meaning any creature or others dedicated to God.
If God said and the pig it would not be just any creature it would be a specific type of creature, and the terms therefore not in harmony with each other as in the other cases.Purely subjective. The criterion is inside the Reading itself.
The common point is clearly stated in 6145, both these prohibited food are unpure for the eater.
The God used Aw/or (6145) and wa/and (16115, 2173) interchangeably to enumerate these prohibited foods.As I stated before, you cannot draw any interpretation based only on one verse. To get a full picture, you should to consider the whole Reading and all arguments based only on the Reading and not guessing work.
By the way, I find it more interesting to look at dangers of meat than dangers of pork on the Internet.
FM
51. O you who believe, honour your contracts. Made lawful for you are all the animals of the livestock, except that which is being recited to you, and what you are not allowed to hunt of the game while you are under restriction. God decrees as He pleases.A. Shabir
51 O You who have chosen to be graced with belief! Fulfill your pledges and obligations. Permitted for you is the flesh of every beast that eats plants, except what is specifically forbidden in the Book. Allah has ordained that all hunting is prohibited during Hajj. Verily, Allah Ordains as He deems fit.The criterion concerning the animals of the livestock is also given in the Reading (6142-6144)
Just after, the God specifies what is specifically forbidden from the animals of the livestock (baheematu al-anAAami) which is lahm alkhinzeer (6145, 16115, 2173).
Regards
-
PEACE, MARIE,
You continue to ignore the evidence. Al-Quran totally supports his analysis, because if lahma khinzeer was/is referring to a species of animal and is unpure for the eater to eat, when then, are you going to provide the concrete Quranic evidence as to WHY it's unpure for the eater to eat? You have yet to do this and, until you do, you are only conjecturing/saying things of Allah of which you have no knowledge/certitude.
You can go back forth about the actual meaning of "aw" (demonstrating that their is doubt in your position), however, to date, neither you nor your supporters, have explained away why--when ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116 are taken together, they totally obliterate any such notion that the pig is haram. When are you going to explain those ayats away? These ayats are CONCLUSIVE as opposed to "aw" argument which is not.
Ayat 51 says...animals, plural, are haram and not an animal from among among the animals ( will you stop twisting stuff, my God?), so, what are the other haram animals which are unpure for the eater to eat? I hope you will also keep in mind that, lahma khinzeer, if one wishes to argue that it is referring to the animal pig, isn't referring to the entire pig, but only its flesh, hence, your interpretation that it means the pig in its entirety contradicts how Allah specifies things. When Allah, per ayat 6146, made an entire species of animals haram, those with claws, and a specific part of others, the fat, nowhere has Allah made this distinction with the pig. Lahma Khinzeer does not equal the entire animal, yet, ayat 51, is referring to animals in their entirety and not their parts, hence, the pig cannot be what is being discussed in that ayat 51.
The part which says..."eats plants", is an EXTRAPOLATION/CONJECTURE on the part of Shabbir or whoever ([please post the dictionary which defines beasts as those who only plants, please.), and is an attempt to explain away ayats 4160, 55, and 6146. He, of course, as with you, fails to do this. He and you, because of your Judeo-Christian indoctrination, per ayat 51, did exactly what Yusef Ali, due to his Judeo-Christian indoctrination, did with the following ayat
6146 For those who followed the Jewish Law, We forbade every (animal) with undivided hoof, 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).
Thufr, does not mean undivided hoof, but claw. None of the definitions I have in Arabic define thufr as hoof, for if it did, then that would mean that sheep amd oxen, along with their fat, would have been haram, because those animals have hooves as does the pig.
Hopefully, you will at last provide your irrefutable evidence why the pig, according to your logic, is haram. Also, when are you going to take ayats 4160, 55, and 6146, on their own, and explain them away? Your "aw" and "ruminants" arguments are inadequate to this task. Let's see you prove how the pig can be haram based on those ayats. Of course you will continue to ignore the aforementioned two questions, because there is simply no way that you can do it, hence, the absolute disengenuousness of your continuing to assert that pig is haram, based on your other misunderstanding of "aw". Is this proof soon forthcoming or what? Please respect the following ayat
2124 Or have they taken for worship (other) gods besides him? Say, "Bring your convincing proof this is the Message of those with me and the Message of those before me." But most of them know not the Truth, and so turn away.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
This is not the issue. I've stated at least 7 times now that khinzeer, in the Arabic language, means pig, however, khinzeer, in the Arabic language, also means--"that which I see as bad/ill-seeming". The question which arise is--which definition does Allah use in His Quran. It cannot mean the animal pig, because ayats 4160, 51, 55, and 6146 rejects any such notion.
Khi- Salam. Well isnt pig meat "that which I see as bad/ill-seeming"? It is part of it so while other bad seeming animals cld also be included, pig is also. As for the verses quoted above i should remind you "pig meat is BY NO MEANS good food"!!!
If this were the case, why then, are billions of people today (and in the past) eating the pig with no health problems at all? Your response does not hold up to the actual evidence. Please read Danish's posts concerning the so-called health issues of the pig (click on to his name under "profile" and read his comments).
Khi- This is not correct. How can you say this when it's a proven fact pig meat greatly increases heart disease because of saturated fat? You are welcome to search the net for articles. Then there are adfditonal parasites like the trichinea found in that meat but even if removed the sutoxin remains a slow poison. Also as i said the pig is one of the most dirty animals on the earth. The meat conatins all kinds of harmful diseases and germs which even when cooked do not necessarily disappear completely. There are even many people in the world who eat dogs and do not have health problems but this doies not automatically mean that the meat is healthy. GOD Bless!