Alkhineer is a noun in the light of the Reading
-
Dear Ahmed,
Thank you for interesting info.
I would be very interested in the origin of the reported bad effects of pork consumption.Could you please give me some details?
Regds
Ali Omar
Cheers Ali
mate, all this stuff are saved on documents on my laptop, I'm actually an active member on many boards and what I have is the history of what I discussed or researched in the past 18 months, the above came from many locations I can only remember one to be honest, part of the info above is on Harun Yehya web site, but what you can do is this bro, there is many medical terms and diseases mentioned why not searching the net and see if it relates to the meat of the pork or even search for info about workers who work in pig farms and how they get infected with horrible diseases
but the bottom line brother ali is this "for me", even if pork was the best meat ever, it was forbidden by Allah explicitly and more than once in His Quran, to be honest when I was 15 to 16 years old I used to go and buy mortadella in Egypt and bloody loved it but later realized that it has to stop, not because I discovered it is harmful, quite the contrary I only discovered this in the last 5 years or so, rather I took it as an order from Allah, I classify this issue as another small test within the numerous tests all of us go through equally, Allah wants to see who will believe and listen then obey, now I don't obey humans really, but because it was so literally straightforward in the Quran, I have to submit
a clear example is alcohol, now, alcohol is fun, it makes us forget the pain, right?, well Allah has told us that alcohol is a bit of good for us but its harm is far more dangerous and we should not come near it, so I stopped drinking about 16 years ago, the important note is this, I could not even read in the Quran that the meat of pig is a bit of good for us like alcohol, so both has to be eliminated and pork before alcohol even
Cheers
-
Salam Ali Omar,
And this is the next obstacle. It seems like nobody consider what is stated in this verse, just bluntly accept blood is rijsun. The verse doesnt say that at all, it says flowing, or running blood. It does not say that blood, as such, is forbidden!
-
He only made forbidden for you what is already dead, and blood, and the meat of pig, and what was sacrificed to any other than God. But whoever is forced to, without disobedience or transgression, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.
-
He has only forbidden for you what is already dead, and the blood, and the meat of pig, and what was dedicated to other than God. Whoever finds himself forced out of need and without disobedience or animosity, then there is no sin upon him. God is Forgiving, Merciful.
The quran specifically mention blood that is pouring out, or running, i.e. not treated in any way, but raw, straight from the source.
Black pudding is fabricated with the running blood.
My question is if this running blood is cooked (black pudding), does that make it lawfull for us?
Idem for the dead meat?It is double standard to say that blood in large amounts is rijsun but in small amounts it is not, and God does not keep double standards.
I said blood (16115, 2173) but I meant running blood (6145), this is why I gave you the example of black pudding.
I have put out one single question that everyone seems to be overlooking, so I post it again for the third time
Can the Arabic word, or root of khinzeer, mean something besides pig, or can it not?
According my understanding, there is any doubt that alkhinzeer is a noon like apes in the light of the Reading.
Independently of scientific arguments about the blood and the meat of pig, the Reading provides the criterion to follow about the animals of the livestock. Based on this, the pig don't fulfill this criterion. The examples given in the Reading is not a free information (6142-6144, 51).
Does pig is like the animals quoted in 6142-144?
The response is NO.You accept scientific argument about the blood and you reject the same argument about the meat of pig, is this your logic?
Actually, if blood is treated properly, there is nothing wrong with it
If you mean running blood, please bring your proof from the Reading which support the statement above.
You should not eat A or B or C or D.............
You should avoid eating A and B and C and D.......Different connecting words, same meaning. ?
I think you don't understand my explanation about why aw/or is used instead of wa/and in 6145. A right reading is necessary for a right understanding. "or" and "and" in 6145, 16115, 2173 is linked to the structure of the sentence but the meaning remains the same one. These 3 verses speaks about the same law; the prohibition of the dead, blood, meat of pig..etc. The common points between these prohibited food remains the same both in 6145 than in 16115, 2173 whatever the letter used "or" or "and".
Dear Grourself,
How can I thank you enough?
This is the kind of clarification I am asking for.If nobody is contending your findings with, at least, the same value of proofs, then it is beyond doubt that the word can mean not only the animal pig, but also other things.
If your question is answered based on what is said in the dictionnaries instead of the Reading, then I tell you good luck for your further study. Personnally I don't trust what is said in the dictionnaries. As I said it to Danish, I seek any guidance in them. The Reading is my only criterion and I find the answers to my questions only in the light of the Reading because it explains itself based.
Salam
-
-
Dear Ahmed,
Thank you for further info.
I will look into it and see what I find.There are many mentions of a source called ?Health Corporation of Singapore? on the Internet concerning this issue, containing a very similar text as what you referred.
However, the only organization of that name in Singapore is a staff union for employees at health institutions, hospitals and so on, and has nothing whatsoever to do with health questions one way or another.
Therefore this may be someone faking a research authority, and has no bases in reality whatsoever. I just hope your information does not stem from that fake source, it has fooled many.As to what God says in the quran, I can not find any mention of ?meat of pig? mentioned anywhere as forbidden, as explained in an earlier post.
Now I will search a bit further into the matter and see what comes up. As I said I am very laid-back with regards to pork being allowed or not as it is not part of my diet.Regards
Ali Omar
-
Salam Grourself,
According to the Dictionary of the Holy Qur'an Page 166, the word Khinzir is a combination of two words, a compound word, Khinz meaning bad and ara meaning I see-
the last syllabe of khinzeer "ir" interpreted as ara = appearance = conjecture.
Khinz meaning bad is a forced meaning, the basic meaning is stink, reek, smell foul.
"see" and "smell foul" together doesn't make any sence, then Khinzeer as a combination of two words doesn't hold water.Will you proceed in the same way for the following words which are ended with the same syllabe than khinzeer?
naseer/Helper (445)
qadeer/able/capable (4133)
basheer/bearer of good news (519)
hameer/donkey (168 )And so on..
Can you bring other examples from the Reading where this kind of combination is used ?
Or khinzeer is an unique exception in the Reading.
having a DISEASED APPEARANCE resembling scrofula;
morally contaminated;
afflicted with scrofula;having a diseased run-down appearance
having a diseased run-down appearance is a forced meaning.
According my arabic-arabic dictionnary, lisan alAAarab, alkhinzeer is also a known/specific desease which is a solid/hardened, abscess, canker, wound, hardened, ulcer of the nape of the neck
Neither khinzeer as a combination of 2 words or a solid/hardened, abscess, canker, wound, hardened, ulcer of the nape of the neck makes sense in the light of the Reading.
The Reading is the best dictionary and the words used to mean ill/sick/desease in a general way are marad, marda, mareed, saqeemun
- 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
4102, 56, 991, 3332, 4817, 7320,
-
- As for those who have a disease in their hearts, it only increased foulness to their foulness, and they died as rejecters.
Waamma allatheena feequloobihim maradun fazadat-hum rijsan ilarijsihim wamatoo wahum kafiroona
- There is no blame upon the blind, nor is there any blame upon the crippled, nor is there any blame upon the ill, nor is there any blame upon yourselves, if you eat at your homes, or the homes of your fathers, or the homes of your mothers, or the homes of your brothers, or the homes of your sisters, or the homes of your uncles, or the homes of your aunts, or the homes of your mothers brothers, or the homes of your mothers sisters, or that which you possess their keys, or that of your friends. You commit nothing wrong by eating together or as individuals. When you enter any home, you shall greet each other a greeting from God that is blessed and good. God thus explains the revelations for you that you may understand.
Laysa AAala al-aAAma harajunwala AAala al-aAAraji harajun walaAAala almareedi harajun wala AAalaanfusikum an ta/kuloo min buyootikum aw buyooti aba-ikumaw buyooti ommahatikum aw buyooti ikhwanikum awbuyooti akhawatikum aw buyooti aAAmamikum awbuyooti AAammatikum aw buyooti akhwalikum awbuyooti khalatikum aw ma malaktum mafatihahuaw sadeeqikum laysa AAalaykum junahun an ta/kuloojameeAAan aw ashtatan fa-itha dakhaltum buyootanfasallimoo AAala anfusikum tahiyyatan min AAindiAllahi mubarakatan tayyibatan kathalikayubayyinu Allahu lakumu al-ayati laAAallakumtaAAqiloona
-
And if I am sick, He is the One who cures me.
Wa-itha maridtu fahuwayashfeeni -
And he said I am ill!
Faqala innee saqeemun
-
Peace brother Ali
regarding verse 6145, I see that you consider the word (Masfoha) as a very important key word that make the meaning some sort of running blood or poured blood
really mate and very simply, "I'm not the type of person who makes things hard or complicated", Allah has told us in at least two other locations that Blood is forbidden, the word "masfoha" was not mentioned at all in these other locations, however looking at 6145 again, I see it means the exact meaning as blood, with an additional piece of info, which is the way the blood was obtained, the common arabic meaning for the word safaha is actually (to kill) or (to try to kill) or to inflict harm on others like (to rape) , (not sure about other meanings if any, I'm just looking at the common meaning that I know in arabic), in fact we call a serial killer or a serial rapist a "Saf'fah", this is a common arabic word indeed, so when I read the the word "Masfoha" which gramatically is called "Maf'oola" i.e. an action was performed on it, for example "Ma'koola" means been eaten, and the root is "akala" (eat), so I see "Masofha" clearly means that the blood was obtained by an action (an action was perfomed on it) "Maf'oola", and the action is to hurt or to kill any creature to obtain its blood to drink it
regardless the blood becomes stationery in a cup or been sucked directly from the injury inflicted on that creature is the exact same for me which is drinking the forbidden blood
Allah knows best
Peace brother
-
Ok brother Ali, sorry to ineterfer, I just like this discussion
I see your point and sure you have a point
but let's consider the following logic
I agree with you that yes blood is blood and if we squeez the meat, drops of blood will come out and sure we eat that blood
But because the blood is runnig in every single part of the body (whatever the part is tiny, small or big), how can we bloody extract the blood from the whole body? lol
impossible man, so whatever left that we can't exctract out with ease will be allowed to eat "No sin committed", in fact if you read all those verses that forbid blood, they end up with "and who was forced to do it without delibertly violating the law, will be forgiven," and I see the very lil amount of blood left in the meat that we end eating will fall under this category of been forced to eat it without delibertly violating the law
Allah knows best
peace
-
Peace,
Does not k-n-z imply a change from the right state? For example, the definition given by Marie is
a known/specific desease which is a solid/hardened, abscess, canker, wound, hardened, ulcer of the nape of the neck
which is clearly describing a change from the right state, as that which is foul/maggotty is a change from the right state. Ali, you look like you're making sense here. I will have to read over the posts when I get back.
Joe
-
Dear Ahmed,
Your comments are enlightening, and I fully agree concerning ?masfooha?, but there is no denying that it mentions that blood is flowing.
The problem I have is mostly to get the whole of the text of the verse to fit with the picture of something being forbidden due to ?rijsun?.
Now if it is regarded as ?not healthy for us?, the amount is not a deciding factor. Contamination in blood is found wherever the blood is.
God does not waste any words; therefore the mention as in 6.145 must have some significance. I therefore see that verse as a guideline.However, it is correct that blood is mentioned on other occasions without saying that it necessarily has to be flowing.
I still have not found anything convincing me that ?flowing blood? is the same as blood wherever and however it is found.
Regards
Ali Omar
-
Ok bro
I can still see your point, how about the following logic
why you considering it as it is forbidden because it is bad?, I know that blood is bad and can be contaminated easily and is not right to drink or cook and eat, but let's assume it is great to drink or cook an eat, why not considering it as a test from Allah to test us and see who will obey?, everything is a test in this life, in fact anything that is forbidden is one of the the real tests
why you need Allah to explain Himself in every single detail?, He actually did briefly and said blood is bad if we drink it, He created the blood and He knows best if it is bad for us or not, but our assupmtion for now that it is good, then the other divine law will apply that it is yet another test from our God in this life which is about nothing but tests and some will pass and the others will fail
now for the tiny blood we eat after been cooked, why not considering that cooking will remove all the shit things from it?, most likely it will when you boil the meat, so even if it was harmful, its lil harm from this tiny quantity should be gone after boiling
but let's assume the lil harm will not go by boiling, then why not considering that Allah will stop that lil harm because He knows well that we can't exctarct all the blood out, He only needs one word to stop the harm "Be"
will this allow us then to drain the blood then cook it to make the balck jelly and eat it?
of course not, because the action is deliberate here to eat blood and this will be violating the clear law from Allah "Not to drink or eat blood"
Allah knows best
peace bro
-
Salam to you all,
I'd like to know your opinion about a detail in 6145, 2173, 16115
Why the God use the word lahm/meat before alkhinzeer and not before the dead animal?
Does the meat of the dead animal( lahm almayta) and the dead animal (almayta) have the same meaning?
Idem for the meat of khinzeer/lahm alkhinzeer and alkhinzeer.
Thanks in advance.
-
Salam to you all,
I'd like to know your opinion about a detail in 6145, 2173, 16115
Why the God use the word lahm/meat before alkhinzeer and not before the dead animal?
Does the meat of the dead animal( lahm almayta) and the dead animal (almayta) have the same meaning?
Idem for the meat of khinzeer/lahm alkhinzeer and alkhinzeer.
Thanks in advance.
Peace sister
just a quick answer as I just read your comment and I have to run to work but will be back and would like to continue this discussion
your question is really good in why Allah did not use the word Lahm before the word Dead as He did with the Lahm Al Khanzir
when I read it I had a quick answer but I would like to elaborate on it later as I think my answer is not complete, but here is what i thought of on the fly
The Quran "Yofasir Badoho Ba'da" i.e. The Quran explains itself, I'm sure you know that, so in another verses Allah has used Lahm with the dead, consequently they both the same (adding the word lahm or not), let's look at the verse where the Word lahm was used with the dead
"O ye who believe! Avoid suspicion as much (as possible) for suspicion in some cases is a sin And spy not on each other behind their backs. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay, ye would abhor it...But fear Allah For Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful."
(12)
Peace to all
-
PEACE, AHMED BAHGAT,
4160 Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah's way.
The verse never mentioned the khanzir, neither it is telling us any new laws, rather is telling us a fact, that For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (things) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from Allah's Way;-
O.K.
can you see mate that I replaced the word (food) with (Things), I could not see anything in the arbic verse that imply it was food that was the subject of the Tahreem matter, rather anything, read it again bro if you read Arabic, what was good for the jews then became forbidden as a result of their iniquity, may also include actions, like not sleeping with their wives during the whole period of fasting, it can be anything really, but it can not be food explicitly, more over you want to extend it further and make it like it is the meat of the pig that was good for them then became forbidden due to their iniquity.
"MAY include"? well, do you know for a fact that it does include those things you mentioned? Yes or no?
What we do KNOW FOR A FACT IS...per ayat 6146, Allah made haram the following "things" to the Jews prior to the advent of Al-Quran
-
"things" called animals with claws.
-
"a thing" called fat of sheep and oxen.
Now, do you see how the pig can be included in any of the above "things" which Allah made haram to the Jew? Yes or no?
Main Entry THING an entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence the real or concrete substance of an entity an inanimate object something referred to by a word, a symbol, a sign, or an idea creature.
Given the above definiton of "thing", food definitely qualifies as such and, food, also comes under the rubric of halal and tayyib "things", hence, ayat 4160 CAN MEAN FOOD, in that, ayat 6146, names the "things" which Allah expressly made haram for the Jews for their transgressions...and those "things" were food. Can you produce another ayat where Allah, expressly, made something haram for the Jews?
Does Allah, anywhere in Al-Quran, state the pig was haram prior to the advent of Al-Quran, meaning, was it haram for Abraham? Yes or no? If yes, then provide the ayat as your proof. You have not yet proved your point via ayat 4160. Let's continue
The second verse you posted 55, again I see nothing explicit about Lahm Al Khanzir, it is also a two way between the Muslims and Ahal Al Kitab, i.e. This day, all good things are made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them...But you see how the verse started with ?ALL GOOD THINGS ARE MADE LAWFUL TO US?,,
Look, I don't care if it started with--"Jeremiah was a bullfrog", the point is this...the ayat says the food of the people of the book is halal to those who follow Al-Quran and vice versa, period. So, I ask you again, where, in Al-Quran, can I find the ayat where Allah made the pig haram for the Jews ( a people of the book)? Allah, expressly, made...ALL animals with CLAWS, IN THEIR ENTIRETY ( not in part as lahma means), haram for the Jews. Now, as I hope you know, pigs do not have claws, period.
now those good things is a general statement and whatever will be lawful should not violates this general rule, so if the verse continued saying, their food is made lawful to us, then why you take it ?all their food??, and even if we will take it as such, then all their good food that should not violate the general rule ?ONLY GOOD THINGS ARE MADE LAWFUL TO US?, you see those good things, ARE MADE, at the same time we ARE WARNED not to eat Lahm Al Khanzir in about 4 different locations, the argument that Khanzir does not mean the pig, is absolutely baseless, because it is the common Arabic word for the pig and this what will prevail, the word should not cause any confusion from the first place, I agree that there are many words that can cause a lot of confusion like ?SOLB and TRA?IB?, but that was not a statement for a new law that we should be aware and are warned to commit it,
The above is just double talk.
But my question again mate, what is in the above verse that talks about Lahm Al Khanzir?, I could not find anything in the Arabic language that can imply talking about it.
Do me a favor, would you? please stay focused, o.k.? This discussion is around that which is considered food. Khinzeer, falls under that category. 55 is, in part, discussing what is halal food
Now science has proved that lahm al khanzir can be really harmful to humans, it is the nature of the animal itself, I?m not going to get into this, I know it has to be exhausted already, but I know for certain that when Allah is forbidding anything or allowing anything, He will be doing it with great wisdom and the absolute knowledge in why this should be the case, and science proved Allah 100% right regarding the environment of the pigs world and its effect on humans
Science hass proved no such thing. Billions of people, past and present, have eaten the pig with absolutely no health problems. As Idol asked...why isn't th rat haram? It was the vector of Bubonic plague. It is much more filthy than any pig, yet it isn't haram. Read the posts by Member Danish, regarding the pig and the supposed health problems.
Moving on to the third verse 6146, after I read it many times and many explanations as well my own understanding based on what I read, I could understand what you want to say by this verse !! do you mean that Lahm Al Khanzir is not listed in the verse as an item of food that was forbidden on the jews?
Of course that is what I mean.
Come on bro, the Lahm Al Kanzir is listed for sure, you see the verse is clearly saying the followings were forbidden
- Every (animal) with claws (Meat and Fat)
- The fat of the ox and the sheep (Fat Only)
So do you agree that the pig is an animal with a claw?
LOL!! You cannot tell the difference between a hoof and a claw??? yet, you are going to debate this issue?? LOL! you've got to be kidding me, right? Psssst...check this out, you will undoubtedly find what I'm going tell fantastic, beyond belief but...pigs don't have claws... Tell you what, look at the foot of pheasant and compare with the foot of a pig...can you see any difference?
Now, given that the pig, per ayat 6146, was not made haram to the Jews, ayat 55 then, makes it clear that, in that the pig was not haram to Jews, hence, it had to be haram--their food, the Jews, is lawful to us. Remember now, per ayat 16116...you cannot make haram what Allah didn't and, nowhere in Al-Quran, did Allah make the pig haram for the Jews. If I'm wrong then produce the ayat where He did make the pig haram, specifically, to the Jews.
I reckon it is, moving to the last verse 16116
16116 And, for what your tongues describe, do not utter the lie, (saying) This is lawful and this is unlawful, in order to forge a lie against Allah; surely those who forge the lie against Allah shall not prosper.
-> mate, I have to say, this verse may be talking about you, you are possibly trying to say that Marie and Me are trying to forbid something that is lawful to us, but we did not forbid anything, it was Allah who said DO NOT EAT LAHM AL KHANZIR, and I see KHANZIR with one meaning only, it means for me that filthy animal called "a pig", nothing in the Arabic that I know for 40 years suggest to me that it means anything else, this is a total joke really, but what I can finally say is thisplease consider that verse 16116 may also be talking about you, because it also talks about the people who try to allow things that are forbidden, I'm sure the verse is talking about things that vague like smoking for example but in this case Lahm Al Khnazir was clearly ?Horrim? by Allah, Allah does not play games with us man
On the contrary, the ayat IS talking about YOU and Marie and some others, mate. You people claim that...the pig is haram for mankind to eat. Ayat 55 says that, the food of the people of the book is halal for us, thus, you and Marie, MUST PROVE, via Al-Quran, that the pig was haram to the Jews before the advent of Al-Quran, PERIOD. If you cannot do this, then you cannot prove your assertion that lahma khinzeer means the animal pig. Ayat, 6146, as far as I know, tells us exactly what Allah, specifically, made haram to the Jews regarding food...now...do you have any ayat where He made haram the pig to them? Yes or no?
Neither you nor Marie, have yet to overcome ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116, which, beyond any doubt, preclude the pig as being haram to those before the advent of Al-Quran or after it. You've got to do better than you have. Marie knows that, when those ayats are taken together/on their own, it destroys her notion that lahma khinzeer means the animal pig. This is why she will has not address them when I posed them to her.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
-
PEACE, MARIE,
ALI OMAR I have put out one single question that everyone seems to be overlooking, so I post it again for the third time Can the Arabic word, or root of khinzeer, mean something besides ?pig?, or can it not?
MARIE According my understanding, there is any doubt that alkhinzeer is a noon like apes in the light of the Reading. If your question is answered based on what is said in the dictionnaries instead of the Reading, then I tell you good luck for your further study. Personnally I don't trust what is said in the dictionnaries. As I said it to Danish, I seek any guidance in them. The Reading is my only criterion and I find the answers to my questions only in the light of the Reading because it explains itself based.
Oh, come on, Marie, you know as well as I that the issue is not the dictionaries, the problem is determining which dictionary definitionAllah is using in His Quran. This is the situation with lahma khinzeer. Khinzeer, according to at least a couple of dictionaries, as you know by this time, has two meanings. Ahmed Bahgat, attempted to explain away ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116, but could not...when are explain them away, because until you do, your notion that lahm khinzeer means the pig, will not fly . Hope at some point you will stop ducking my question.
-
Salam brother Ahmed Bahgat,
Thanks for your reply, I don't think that lahma almayta = almayta and lahma alkhinzeer = alkhinzeer.
4912 specifies the flesh of his dead brother, not his bones.
In 2314, we read "then We covered the bone/alAAithama with flesh/lahman". In the Reading, the God uses distinctly lahm/meat, shahm/fat and alAAitham (bones).6146 is a good example, the God prohibited for the "jews" all that have claws/hoof and the fat of the cattle and the sheep.. that implies the whole body of all that have claws/hoof and only the fat not the meat of the cattle and the sheep except what is attached to the back, or entrails, or mixed with bone.
As the language in the Reading is concise, lahm/meat or shahm/fat of some thing (alkhinzeer (6145, 16115, 2173), the cattle and sheep (6146) are specific and doesn't mean the whole body.
alkhinzeer without lahm means the whole body but lahm alkhinzeer specifies what is forbiden the meat.My question if alkhinzeer is not healthy to eat it, why the God specifies lahm alkhinzeer instead of "alkhinzeer" like "almaytat" or "all that have claws/hoof".
It is clear that almayta implies the whole body, can we say the same thing for lahm alkhinzeer?Thanks
-
PEACE, AHMED BAHGAT,
Peace
4160 Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah's way.
The verse never mentioned the khanzir, neither it is telling us any new laws, rather is telling us a fact, that For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (things) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from Allah's Way;-
O.K.
cheers
can you see mate that I replaced the word (food) with (Things), I could not see anything in the arbic verse that imply it was food that was the subject of the Tahreem matter, rather anything, read it again bro if you read Arabic, what was good for the jews then became forbidden as a result of their iniquity, may also include actions, like not sleeping with their wives during the whole period of fasting, it can be anything really, but it can not be food explicitly, more over you want to extend it further and make it like it is the meat of the pig that was good for them then became forbidden due to their iniquity.
"MAY include"? well, do you know for a fact that it does include those things you mentioned? Yes or no?
yes
don?t hold the word ?May? that I used against me, I?m not fluent in English, in fact I brought an example that was mentioned in the Quran
I tend to be logical in what I say as a third person who is not me, that?s all LOL,
What we do KNOW FOR A FACT IS...per ayat 6146, Allah made haram the following "things" to the Jews prior to the advent of Al-Quran
-
"things" called animals with claws.
-
"a thing" called fat of sheep and oxen.
Now, do you see how the pig can be included in any of the above "things" which Allah made haram to the Jew? Yes or no?
Main Entry THING an entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence the real or concrete substance of an entity an inanimate object something referred to by a word, a symbol, a sign, or an idea creature.
Oh, please, what the hell of that?, I do not need your dictionary, thanks
Given the above definiton of "thing", food definitely qualifies as such and, food, also comes under the rubric of halal and tayyib "things", hence, ayat 4160 CAN MEAN FOOD, in that, ayat 6146, names the "things" which Allah expressly made haram for the Jews for their transgressions...and those "things" were food. Can you produce another ayat where Allah, expressly, made something haram for the Jews?
why you want me to produce a verse as such?
Is it a test or somethin?
Possibly a Quran trivia?
Well, I?m not playing, thanks lol
Does Allah, anywhere in Al-Quran, state the pig was haram prior to the advent of Al-Quran, meaning, was it haram for Abraham? Yes or no?
of course it is stated in the OT, I posted it already, now a true Muslim should believe in the OT parts that was not corrupt, how we know it is not corrupt?, simply by comparing it with the uncorrupted Quran and sorry we have a perfect match regarding the meat of the pig in here
If yes, then provide the ayat as your proof. You have not yet proved your point via ayat 4160. Let's continue
The second verse you posted 55, again I see nothing explicit about Lahm Al Khanzir, it is also a two way between the Muslims and Ahal Al Kitab, i.e. This day, all good things are made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them...But you see how the verse started with ?ALL GOOD THINGS ARE MADE LAWFUL TO US?,,
Look, I don't care if it started with--"Jeremiah was a bullfrog", the point is this...the ayat says the food of the people of the book is halal to those who follow Al-Quran and vice versa, period. So, I ask you again, where, in Al-Quran, can I find the ayat where Allah made the pig haram for the Jews ( a people of the book)?
hey bro, I don?t like this arrogant way of talking, sorry, my right I guess, now I can really compete with very tough arrogant words and I do it on other boards but I decided not to do it in here, so please read the OT passage I posted and in there you will see God forbidding the pig, and this was confirmed by the Quran
very simple equation for me
if your equation totally ignores the uncorrupted parts of the OT then sorry we have to agree to disagree, as I believe in those OT passages exactly as I believe in the all the Quran verses
Allah, expressly, made...ALL animals with CLAWS, IN THEIR ENTIRETY ( not in part as lahma means), haram for the Jews. Now, as I hope you know, pigs do not have claws, period.
really?, it seems we need Darwin to give us some insight, I don?t give a shit really if it was forbidden on the jews or not, I?m not a bloody Jews, I?m a Muslim, and I?m following what the celar words of ?Lahm Al Kanzir? means
How about you try the Christians instead of the Jews, possibly I will give a shit?
now those good things is a general statement and whatever will be lawful should not violates this general rule, so if the verse continued saying, their food is made lawful to us, then why you take it ?all their food??, and even if we will take it as such, then all their good food that should not violate the general rule ?ONLY GOOD THINGS ARE MADE LAWFUL TO US?, you see those good things, ARE MADE, at the same time we ARE WARNED not to eat Lahm Al Khanzir in about 4 different locations, the argument that Khanzir does not mean the pig, is absolutely baseless, because it is the common Arabic word for the pig and this what will prevail, the word should not cause any confusion from the first place, I agree that there are many words that can cause a lot of confusion like ?SOLB and TRA?IB?, but that was not a statement for a new law that we should be aware and are warned to commit it,
The above is just double talk.
ok
But my question again mate, what is in the above verse that talks about Lahm Al Khanzir?, I could not find anything in the Arabic language that can imply talking about it.
Do me a favor, would you? please stay focused, o.k.?
ok
This discussion is around that which is considered food. Khinzeer, falls under that category. 55 is, in part, discussing what is halal food
ok
Now science has proved that lahm al khanzir can be really harmful to humans, it is the nature of the animal itself, I?m not going to get into this, I know it has to be exhausted already, but I know for certain that when Allah is forbidding anything or allowing anything, He will be doing it with great wisdom and the absolute knowledge in why this should be the case, and science proved Allah 100% right regarding the environment of the pigs world and its effect on humans
Science hass proved no such thing. Billions of people, past and present, have eaten the pig with absolutely no health problems. As Idol asked...why isn't th rat haram? It was the vector of Bubonic plague. It is much more filthy than any pig, yet it isn't haram. Read the posts by Member Danish, regarding the pig and the supposed health problems.
well you may try to ask the Rat question to someone else not me?, I won?t eat rats but if I?m staved to death I will eat all the rats/pigs around me and possibly eat you too, ?just kiddin?
I will try to read the post by Danish but I can?t promise, I run three companies and I participate on other boards, I have no time to piss but I mange to squeeze a lot of things togther
Moving on to the third verse 6146, after I read it many times and many explanations as well my own understanding based on what I read, I could understand what you want to say by this verse !! do you mean that Lahm Al Khanzir is not listed in the verse as an item of food that was forbidden on the jews?
Of course that is what I mean.
cool, rarely we agreed on something
Come on bro, the Lahm Al Kanzir is listed for sure, you see the verse is clearly saying the followings were forbidden
- Every (animal) with claws (Meat and Fat)
- The fat of the ox and the sheep (Fat Only)
So do you agree that the pig is an animal with a claw?
LOL!! You cannot tell the difference between a hoof and a claw??? yet, you are going to debate this issue?? LOL! you've got to be kidding me, right? Psssst...check this out, you will undoubtedly find what I'm going tell fantastic, beyond belief but...pigs don't have claws... Tell you what, look at the foot of pheasant and compare with the foot of a pig...can you see any difference?
do you think I?m an idiot to do and look on the pig foot?, LOL, come on man it is relative, something which look hoof to you may look like a claw to me, and will look like nothing to a blind man, who give a shit?
What is your argument trying to prove that the pig meat was not prohibited on the Jews?, is it relevant to the STRAIGHTFORWARD VERSES to not to eat the meat of the pig?
Oh yeh, you trying to use a general statement in another verse that says their food it allowed to us, come on this is a perfect case of deception by you, the verse did not say all the food and it started by sating only the good things are allowed, now the quran told us the meat of the pig is not a good food and ?DO NOT EAT IT?, how clearer can it get?, I reckon a blind will see it
What exactly you are trying to manipulate?
Now, given that the pig, per ayat 6146, was not made haram to the Jews
far out bro, I do not agree with that, cheers
ayat 55 then, makes it clear that, in that the pig was not haram to Jews,
sorry again I don?t agree with that, your logic is way too far beyond recognition
hence, it had to be haram--their food, the Jews, is lawful to us.
hence I don?t agree
Remember now, per ayat 16116...you cannot make haram what Allah didn't and, nowhere in Al-Quran, did Allah make the pig haram for the Jews.
you accuse of double talk, now it is my turn to accuse you with triple talk, come on bro I?m sick of this question already, ok, let me answer it for the third time
it is written in the uncorrupted passages in the OT, and we can know it is uncorrupted by comparing it with the 100% uncorrupted Quran,
now any true Muslim must believe in these uncorrupted passages exactly as the believe in the Quran, this is not what I said, it is what Allah said in His Quran
If I'm wrong then produce the ayat where He did make the pig haram, specifically, to the Jews.
help me God, thank you
it was very specific and explicit to the Muslims in the Quran
and it was very specific and explicit to the Jews and Christians in the Bible
I reckon it is, moving to the last verse 16116
16116 And, for what your tongues describe, do not utter the lie, (saying) This is lawful and this is unlawful, in order to forge a lie against Allah; surely those who forge the lie against Allah shall not prosper.
perfect verse that describe you, cheers
-> mate, I have to say, this verse may be talking about you, you are possibly trying to say that Marie and Me are trying to forbid something that is lawful to us, but we did not forbid anything, it was Allah who said DO NOT EAT LAHM AL KHANZIR, and I see KHANZIR with one meaning only, it means for me that filthy animal called "a pig", nothing in the Arabic that I know for 40 years suggest to me that it means anything else, this is a total joke really, but what I can finally say is thisplease consider that verse 16116 may also be talking about you, because it also talks about the people who try to allow things that are forbidden, I'm sure the verse is talking about things that vague like smoking for example but in this case Lahm Al Khnazir was clearly ?Horrim? by Allah, Allah does not play games with us man
On the contrary, the ayat IS talking about YOU and Marie and some others, mate. You people claim that...the pig is haram for mankind to eat. Ayat 55 says that, the food of the people of the book is halal for us, thus, you and Marie, MUST PROVE, via Al-Quran, that the pig was haram to the Jews before the advent of Al-Quran, PERIOD. If you cannot do this, then you cannot prove your assertion that lahma khinzeer means the animal pig. Ayat, 6146, as far as I know, tells us exactly what Allah, specifically, made haram to the Jews regarding food...now...do you have any ayat where He made haram the pig to them? Yes or no?
hehe, yep I posted the passage from the Bible, do you want to see it again, or you don?t believe in it?
Now let me give you a lesson in the Arabic Language
We can say the following
? ?, which has one meaning only ?The meat of the chicken?
we can also say the following and it also has the same exact meaning
? ?, again it also has one meaning ? the meat of a chicken?
can you spot the difference?
Well let?s now apply another Arabic word that describe the meat instead of associating it with a noun of a creature, for example, the following is valid
? ?, it simply means ?barbequed meat?
the following is also valid
? ?, it means ?rotten meat
now the following is also valid
? ?, it means ?the barbequed meat?
as well the following is valid
? ?, which means ?the rotten meat?
now what I have never heard of in Arabic is this the second word ?Al Fasid? which means ?The Rotten? is an adjective to the first word ?Lahm? without ?Al? in ?Lahm? as follow
? ?
Al Fasid can not describe Lahm without Lahm having the ?Al?, do you understand my very important point?
Unless Al Fasid is a noun NOT an adjective, and in this case Lahm can be accepted without the ?Al in front it
Applying this simple common knowledge about Arabic, on the verses where the meat of the pig appeared we see the Quarn used Lahm without ?Al? and Khanzir was used with ?Al? and without ?Al?
Like this
? ?
? ?
The above two Arabic sentences as appeared in the Quran can not be valid unless ?Khanzir? is a noun, like the chicken example I started with.
if ?Khanzir? is an adjective then ? ? is not valid Arabic sentence
Neither you nor Marie, have yet to overcome ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116, which, beyond any doubt, preclude the pig as being haram to those before the advent of Al-Quran or after it. You've got to do better than you have. Marie knows that, when those ayats are taken together/on their own, it destroys her notion that lahma khinzeer means the animal pig. This is why she will has not address them when I posed them to her.
Looking forward to your reply.
Ok
peace
-
-
Salam brother Ahmed Bahgat,
Thanks for your reply, I don't think that lahma almayta = almayta and lahma alkhinzeer = alkhinzeer.
4912 specifies the flesh of his dead brother, not his bones.
In 2314, we read "then We covered the bone/alAAithama with flesh/lahman". In the Reading, the God uses distinctly lahm/meat, shahm/fat and alAAitham (bones).6146 is a good example, the God prohibited for the "jews" all that have claws/hoof and the fat of the cattle and the sheep.. that implies the whole body of all that have claws/hoof and only the fat not the meat of the cattle and the sheep except what is attached to the back, or entrails, or mixed with bone.
As the language in the Reading is concise, lahm/meat or shahm/fat of some thing (alkhinzeer (6145, 16115, 2173), the cattle and sheep (6146) are specific and doesn't mean the whole body.
alkhinzeer without lahm means the whole body but lahm alkhinzeer specifies what is forbiden the meat.My question if alkhinzeer is not healthy to eat it, why the God specifies lahm alkhinzeer instead of "alkhinzeer" like "almaytat" or "all that have claws/hoof".
It is clear that almayta implies the whole body, can we say the same thing for lahm alkhinzeer?Thanks
thanks sister
I'm sorry sister you are making things way too complex and you are also crossing with an important law in the Quran
sura no 5
(101)
(102)
i.e. we should not ask this silly question really,
however if I try to answer your question, I'd say the comst commonly eaten part is the flesh
I agree some eat the bones, some eat the eyes and some even eat the stomack and other parts that I can hardly eat in a cow
but the point is lahm is the main and most eaten part and it is forbidden, consequently all the rest is forbidden
Allah did not tell us to eat the bones of the cow, but we eat it because its flesh was allowed
unless we need a detailed description to the anatomy of the An'am "cattle" to know what partts we should eat and what we should not, this will turn the whole test by Allah into a joke
peace
-
PEACE, MARIE, and ALL,
MARIE 6146 is a good example, the God prohibited for the "jews" all that have claws/hoof and the fat of the cattle and the sheep.. that implies the whole body of all that have claws/hoof and only the fat not the meat of the cattle and the sheep except what is attached to the back, or entrails, or mixed with bone...My question if alkhinzeer is not healthy to eat it, why the God specifies lahm alkhinzeer instead of "alkhinzeer" like "almaytat" or "all that have claws/hoof".
Marie, why are you deliberately forging Al-Quran and assigning a lie to Allah?? You know that thufr does not and cannot mean hoof, because if it did, then the sheep and oxen in their entirety along with their fat would have been haram, because like the pig...they have hooves as well. Once you define thufr as hooves, then ayat 6146 contradicts itself as to what was made haram for the Jews. Only the fat of sheep and oxen were made haram, thus, if you define thufr as hoof, well, now you've created a contradiction, because now the entire sheep and oxen become haram. Your desperate attempt to salvage what is already, and what has been for weeks now, a lost argument by deliberately distorting the definition of thufr, is staggeringly disengenuous and egregious.
As the language in the Reading is concise, lahm/meat or shahm/fat of some thing (alkhinzeer (6145, 16115, 2173), the cattle and sheep (6146) are specific and doesn't mean the whole body.
Yeah?, well if thufr means hoof, then the whole body of the sheep and oxen become haram, can you not grasp this obvious reality??
alkhinzeer without lahm means the whole body but lahm alkhinzeer specifies what is forbiden the meat.
My question if alkhinzeer is not healthy to eat it, why the God specifies lahm alkhinzeer instead of "alkhinzeer" like "almaytat" or "all that have claws/hoof". It is clear that almayta implies the whole body, can we say the same thing for lahm alkhinzeer?
Well, DON"T you know?, it's your argument, isn't it? How can lahma alkhizeer mean the whole pig when lahma, as with shahm, is a specific part of the alleged animal? Do you not see the glaring contradiction here?
There is no overcoming ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116. How long with you continue to forge and forsake this Quran openly before Allah? Have you no fear of the consequences for such deliberate acts of distortion? My God.
-
Ahmed Bahgat
PBM"MAY include"? well, do you know for a fact that it does include those things you mentioned? Yes or no?
AB yes. don?t hold the word ?May? that I used against me, I?m not fluent in English, in fact I brought an example that was mentioned in the Quran. I tend to be logical in what I say as a third person who is not me, that?s all LOL,
Fine, but you did not answer the question put to you. Do you know for a fact that it does include those things you mentioned? Yes or no?
PBM What we do KNOW FOR A FACT IS...per ayat 6146, Allah made haram the following "things" to the Jews prior to the advent of Al-Quran 1. "things" called animals with claws. 2. "a thing" called fat of sheep and oxen. Now, do you see how the pig can be included in any of the above "things" which Allah made haram to the Jew? Yes or no?
Main Entry THING an entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence the real or concrete substance of an entity an inanimate object something referred to by a word, a symbol, a sign, or an idea creature.
AB Oh, please, what the hell of that?, I do not need your dictionary, thanks
LOL! Apparently you do, because you don't know the meanings of important terms and that is why dictionaries are sooo important, get it?
Your response does not refute my assertion nor does it prove you own, hence, your reply is not relevent to anything. Please respond to what was/is presented to you.
PBM Given the above definiton of "thing", food definitely qualifies as such and, food, also comes under the rubric of halal and tayyib "things", hence, ayat 4160 CAN MEAN FOOD, in that, ayat 6146, names the "things" which Allah expressly made haram for the Jews for their transgressions...and those "things" were food. Can you produce another ayat where Allah, expressly, made something haram for the Jews?
why you want me to produce a verse as such? Is it a test or somethin? Possibly a Quran trivia? Well, I?m not playing, thanks lol
Nooo, I want you to simly back up your assertions about what you claim Allah has commanded. Once again, Your response does not refute my assertion nor does it prove you own, hence, your reply is not relevent to anything. Please respond to what was/is presented to you
PBM Does Allah, anywhere in Al-Quran, state the pig was haram prior to the advent of Al-Quran, meaning, was it haram for Abraham? Yes or no?
of course it is stated in the OT, I posted it already, now a true Muslim should believe in the OT parts that was not corrupt, how we know it is not corrupt?, simply by comparing it with the uncorrupted Quran and sorry we have a perfect match regarding the meat of the pig in here
-
I didn't ask you what is stated in the OT, the question put to you was/is...Does Allah, anywhere in Al-Quran.... I'm not asking about the OT. Please answer yes or no?
-
The OT, si not the Book of Guidance to mankind...Al-Quran is
2185 The month of Ramazan is that in which the Quran was revealed, as guidance to men and clear proofs of the guidance and the criterion...
Do you see? Please answer the question put to you now, thanks.
If yes, then provide the ayat as your proof. You have not yet proved your point via ayat 4160. Let's continue
AB The second verse you posted 55, again I see nothing explicit about Lahm Al Khanzir, it is also a two way between the Muslims and Ahal Al Kitab, i.e. This day, all good things are made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them...But you see how the verse started with ?ALL GOOD THINGS ARE MADE LAWFUL TO US?,,
PBM Look, I don't care if it started with--"Jeremiah was a bullfrog", the point is this...the ayat says the food of the people of the book is halal to those who follow Al-Quran and vice versa, period. So, I ask you again, where, in Al-Quran, can I find the ayat where Allah made the pig haram for the Jews ( a people of the book)?
hey bro, I don?t like this arrogant way of talking, sorry, my right I guess, now I can really compete with very tough arrogant words and I do it on other boards but I decided not to do it in here, so please read the OT passage I posted and in there you will see God forbidding the pig, and this was confirmed by the Quran
Once again, the OT, is not Allah's Book of Guidance to mankind, see ayat 2185 if you doubt.
very simple equation for me if your equation totally ignores the uncorrupted parts of the OT then sorry we have to agree to disagree, as I believe in those OT passages exactly as I believe in the all the Quran verses
If you believe the OT as you do Al-Quran, then you are in shirk, because you have now taken two sources for your guidance. It is well established that the OT is corrupted, hence, it can only be referred to with precision, when Allah, in Al-Quran, tells us to refer to it for a specific point i.e. that the Messenger is found mentioned in it. Does Allah tell you to refer to the OT on the matter of the pig, yes or no? Just because you say that you believe something doesn't make it true, hence, the following ayat
2124 Or, have they taken gods besides Him? Say Bring your proof; this is the reminder of those with me and the reminder of those before me. Nay! most of them do not know the truth, so they turn aside.
You have not brought your Quranic proof that the pig was haram for the Jews. Is this Quranic proof soon forthcoming? Allah, in His uncorrupted Quran, per ayat 6146, tells us in regard to food, what He made haram to the Jews and the pig wasn't one of them. Do you dispute my claim here?, if so, then produce the ayat to refute me, thanks.
PBM Allah, expressly, made...ALL animals with CLAWS, IN THEIR ENTIRETY ( not in part as lahma means), haram for the Jews. Now, as I hope you know, pigs do not have claws, period.
really?, it seems we need Darwin to give us some insight, I don?t give a s*** really if it was forbidden on the jews or not, I?m not a bloody Jews, I?m a Muslim, and I?m following what the celar words of ?Lahm Al Kanzir? means
How about you try the Christians instead of the Jews, possibly I will give a s***?
Hmmm...you don't give ****, eh? Well, your responses make that abundantly clear, in that, they don't refute my claims nor do they prove yours. Listen, i have some more news for ya...your not even Muslim and the pity is...you don't even know it. But, of course, you don't give a ****, right? lol
AB Now science has proved that lahm al khanzir can be really harmful to humans, it is the nature of the animal itself, I?m not going to get into this, I know it has to be exhausted already, but I know for certain that when Allah is forbidding anything or allowing anything, He will be doing it with great wisdom and the absolute knowledge in why this should be the case, and science proved Allah 100% right regarding the environment of the pigs world and its effect on humans
PBM Science hass proved no such thing. Billions of people, past and present, have eaten the pig with absolutely no health problems. As Idol asked...why isn't th rat haram? It was the vector of Bubonic plague. It is much more filthy than any pig, yet it isn't haram. Read the posts by Member Danish, regarding the pig and the supposed health problems.
well you may try to ask the Rat question to someone else not me?, I won?t eat rats but if I?m staved to death I will eat all the rats/pigs around me and possibly eat you too, ?just kiddin? I will try to read the post by Danish but I can?t promise, I run three companies and I participate on other boards, I have no time to piss but I mange to squeeze a lot of things togther
Read his posts soon, you will learn some more things, that is, if you give a crap.
AB Come on bro, the Lahm Al Kanzir is listed for sure, you see the verse is clearly saying the followings were forbidden
- Every (animal) with claws (Meat and Fat)
- The fat of the ox and the sheep (Fat Only)
So do you agree that the pig is an animal with a claw?
PBM LOL!! You cannot tell the difference between a hoof and a claw??? yet, you are going to debate this issue?? LOL! you've got to be kidding me, right? Psssst...check this out, you will undoubtedly find what I'm going tell fantastic, beyond belief but...pigs don't have claws... Tell you what, look at the foot of pheasant and compare with the foot of a pig...can you see any difference?
do you think I?m an idiot to do and look on the pig foot?,
Do you really want me to answer this question? shock
LOL, come on man it is relative, something which look hoof to you may look like a claw to me, and will look like nothing to a blind man, who give a s***?
Allah, did reveal a Book on Relativism, He reveal about on Knowledge/ Guidance. Don't you think Allah and the Arab people know the difference between a claw and a hoof without confusing the two? Even blind people can tel the difference through touch, what are you talking about? Yes, it is apparent that you DON"T GIVE A CRAP about Allah's Quran, because you treat it in very cavalier fashion, hence, the following ayats aptly applies to you
2530 And the Messenger cried out O my Lord! surely my people have treated this Quran as a forsaken thing
What is your argument trying to prove that the pig meat was not prohibited on the Jews?
Absolutely, because if the pig was prohibited to the Jews, then ayat 6146 cannot be true! This ayat tells man what animals Allah prohibited to Jews as food...and the pig, not having claws, was not one of them, get it?
is it relevant to the STRAIGHTFORWARD VERSES to not to eat the meat of the pig
Because you don't give a crap, you have not taken the time to find out if lahma khinzeer actually means the meat of pig, which it doesn't, and this is why you cannot overcome ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116.
Oh yeh, you trying to use a general statement in another verse that says their food it allowed to us, come on this is a perfect case of deception by you, the verse did not say all the food and it started by sating only the good things are allowed, now the quran told us the meat of the pig is not a good food and ?DO NOT EAT IT?, how clearer can it get?, I reckon a blind will see it. What exactly you are trying to manipulate?
How the ayat started is not the issue, the issue is it addresses FOOD!, but of course you don't give a crap about that fact, do you? I cannot even call you deceiving or manipulative, because you simply do not know what the heck you are talking about and all you are doing is parroting the prevailing superstition which surrounds the pig...pitiful.
PBM Now, given that the pig, per ayat 6146, was not made haram to the Jews
far out bro, I do not agree with that, cheers
Apparently, but you have not brought forth any ayats to refute my claim nor have you brought forth any evidence to prove your own. You just simply say..."I don't agree and this is how I believe and that is that"! rotfl. Yeah, that will take far lol
PBM ayat 55 then, makes it clear that, in that the pig was not haram to Jews,
sorry again I don?t agree with that, your logic is way too far beyond recognition
nope , you are simply too steeped in superstition, too intellectually lazy, and too arrogant ( "I don't give a s***--AB ) to put together 1+1+1 to come up with 3.
PBM hence, it had to be haram--their food, the Jews, is lawful to us.
hence I don?t agree
You disagree based on what...your superstitious upbringing?, because you certainly have not put forth anykind of logical/coherent Quranic basis for your objection. But of course..you don't give a crap about that.
PBM Remember now, per ayat 16116...you cannot make haram what Allah didn't and, nowhere in Al-Quran, did Allah make the pig haram for the Jews.
you accuse of double talk, now it is my turn to accuse you with triple talk, come on bro I?m sick of this question already, ok, let me answer it for the third time
How are you going to answer it for third time, when you haven't answered it for the first time yet?
it is written in the uncorrupted passages in the OT, and we can know it is uncorrupted by comparing it with the 100% uncorrupted Quran,
Really? well the following ayat is what Allah says that He made haram to the Jews, in his 100% uncorrupted Quran
6146 And to those who were Jews We made haram every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made haram to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.
Now, if the OT, in whatever passage you are claiming is 100% uncorrupted, then it cannot contradict ayat 6146!! According to ayat 6146..the pig could not have been haram to Jews because it doesn't have claws, PERIOD, hence, the two 100% uncorrupted books, as you claim, are in contradiction to each other! Now, we both know that both of these books are not uncorrupted, don't we? If you weren't so stuck on superstition, you would see that in Al-Quran, Allah is tellling mankind that the Jews LIED about what He made haram to them!! Ayat 6146 tells you that, Allah NEVER made the pig haram to Jews, they LIED!, get it?
now any true Muslim must believe in these uncorrupted passages exactly as the believe in the Quran, this is not what I said, it is what Allah said in His Quran
How do you know the passage you are referring to is uncorrupted? Did Allah tel you refer to the OT regarding the pig? ye sor no? If He didn't, then you don't know if it is uncorrupted or not and you are only conjecturing, which, of course, is your custom to do, because you don't give a crap about Quranic FACTS.
PBM If I'm wrong then produce the ayat where He did make the pig haram, specifically, to the Jews.
help me God, thank you. it was very specific and explicit to the Muslims in the Quran. and it was very specific and explicit to the Jews and Christians in the Bible
If it were so explicit as you claim it is, then why haven't you or Marie, been able to explain away ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116? All I get is you people talking around these ayats, but neither of you have refuted them. These ayats absolutely preclude any notion that the pig is haram.
hehe, yep I posted the passage from the Bible, do you want to see it again, or you don?t believe in it?
The bible is not Al-Quran. Bring you Quranic proof. Al-Quran is the Book of Guidance not the OT, get it? You see, AB, there is no way for you to refute my claim via Al-Quran and that is why you must go outside of it in an attempt to your superstition. The bible is corrupted, hence, it is unreliable as guidance, except, where Allah, specifically, in Al-Quran, has told us to refer to it. So, bring you Quranic proof...can't can ya lol.
Stop conjecturing and supporting superstition.
-