Alkhineer is a noun in the light of the Reading
-
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.
-
-
Hi all,
As this discussion is going nowhere, fast, I think I should try to sum up the findings so far.
Through the reassurance from some participants, the quranic language is quite different from the Arabic language, at least when this seems to fit a purpose. ?
The word ?lahm? does not mean ?meat? in the quran, but points to the whole animal. I.e. ?lahm? may therefore be meat, fat, intestines, skin or anything else of an animal.
This is very far from the Arabic understanding of the word.
Also the belief that the quran contains all the grammar and other linguistic explanations needed, without referring to the Arabic language, makes the Arabic language insignificant when it comes to understanding the quran. shockThere have been a number of blunt oversights as to what God says, and totally constructed, unfounded claims have been made as to the understanding of some of the verses. Use of common sense has also been seen as being of no importance, even though God asks us to use our minds, and read all what God says.
God also asks us to look at all other signs around us, not only the written scripture. shockDirect questions remain unanswered, maybe overlooked, therefore sabotaging any kind of discussion on the bases of Gods signs, using our minds and not following in the footsteps of our forefathers.
The unfounded claims, obviously based on conjecture, probably through influence of tradition, are therefore still maintained. ?In addition to the quran, the Old Testament has been brought in as evidence, and that is, in my mind not a relevant source.
There is therefore so much conjecture being firmly upheld, that further discussion is questionable in order to solve the questions raised.However, the discussion has clearly shown how deep rooted the Hislamic teachings are, even though many people are trying to break free. (( This, I believe, is a main source for the difficult task of finding back to islam. We try to use all kinds of ?crutches? to prove our present standpoints without using the most precious tools given to us, namely our senses and our (open) minds.
My conclusions are therefore, at this time, that only animals killed by other means than slaughter by a human, blood in its natural state, meat that seems to have gone bad, and any food dedicated to other than God, is forbidden for us to consume.
I welcome any differing opinions concerning this, if it is not based on conjecture.
Regards
Ali Omar
-
peace PBM
before I respond to your comment you need to respond to my arabic lesson that I posted in last bit of my last comment
do you speak arabic btw?
if yes, then please you have to respond to my very strong argument that Lahm Al Khanzir, can not be anything else but the Lahm of a Noun
please don't dodge it
-
PEACE, AHMED BAHGAT,
before I respond to your comment you need to respond to my arabic lesson that I posted in last bit of my last comment. do you speak arabic btw?
No I don't speak Arabic, what is your point?
You don't have an argument. Marie, and now you, have been trying to push the grammar canard for days now and have failed. There is great deal of conjecture and doubt the grammar, however, when taken together, ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116, without doubt, proves that the pig was never haram to the those before the advent of Al-Quran, hence, cannot be haram for those after its advent. Marie understands this and that is why she will not respond to those ayats, because she knows they destroy her grammar canard. You need to focus on the aforementioned ayats and refute them Quranically. Your last post was not a refutation but simply your conjectures and subjective notions. The OT, except when Allah specifically tells us to refer to it for a specific reason, is not evidence due to its having been corrupted. The alleged grammar, as I said, is not evidence because there is doubt as to what actually is the correct grammar and, yours and Marie's grammar argument as it stands now, contradicts the aforementioned ayats. No unproven notions of grammar can overcome the clear meaning of Allah's Proofs/Ayats.
So, thus far, you and Marie have not met your burden of proof that lahma khinzeer is referring to the animal pig.
-
Peace PRIEST_BOKMEI
I can tell you honestly that you are a laugh if you don't speak arabic and arguing with native arabic speakers
let me laugh again
lol lol lol lol
lol lol lol lol
lol lol lol lolsorry i could not hold it
bad luck mate, but keep learning
end of discssion with you
peace be with u and c u
i'm still laughing
-
PEACE, AHMED BAHGAT,
In between your peals of laughter, please show me the ayat where Allah tells humanity that they must learn and speak the Arabic language as a requiste to benefiting from His Guidance in Al-Quran. What is required is that one know what the Arabic terms mean in Al-Quran, hence, the role of dictionaries and lexicons. I don't know the Spanish language either, but if I say to a Spanish woman..."como esta baja?", I guarantee you that we both know exactly what I'm saying to her. Who do you think your kidding, other than yourself of course, with your baloney...mate? lol
Laugh the folllowing off
You don't have an argument. Marie, and now you, have been trying to push the grammar canard for days now and have failed. There is great deal of conjecture and doubt the grammar, however, when taken together, ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116, without doubt, proves that the pig was never haram to the those before the advent of Al-Quran, hence, cannot be haram for those after its advent. Marie understands this and that is why she will not respond to those ayats, because she knows they destroy her grammar canard. You need to focus on the aforementioned ayats and refute them Quranically.
Your last post, and the others which preceded it, was not a refutation but simply your conjectures and subjective notions. The OT, except when Allah specifically tells us to refer to it for a specific reason, is not evidence due to its having been corrupted. The alleged grammar, as I said, is not evidence because there is doubt as to what actually is the correct grammar and, yours and Marie's grammar argument as it stands now, contradicts the aforementioned ayats. No unproven notions of grammar can overcome the clear meaning of Allah's Proofs/Ayats.
So, thus far, you and Marie have not met your burden of proof that lahma khinzeer is referring to the animal pig.
LOL! You, as with Tanveer, Marie, mquran, cannot explain ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116 in any language. That weight you feel in the middle of your back pushing your face into the ground? are ...ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116 lol You're finished and that last ridiculous desperate act of asking if I speak the Arabic language, simply took away what little credibilty you had. Don't pester me any more with your un-Quranic nonsense, thanks...mate wink
-
PBM 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- Salam. I totally disagree with you. They do have a lot of health problems and the media is hiding this as they wanna sell pig as it is easily available and probably tastes good or something. My grandfather for example has pain in his bones and he eats pig regularly. Id never eat that garbage. And btw rats are cleaner then pigs in my opinion although i do agree that the definiton of khinzeer CAN BE EXTENDED to include other rotten meats as well but NOT exclude pig meat which is the PRIMARY GARBAGE.
Butter, and red meats in general, also have the same issues. So what?
Khi- They do NOT. Pig has the HIGHEST rate of saturated fats of all the ones you mentioned above. Thus it greatly increases this risk.
I work in hospital for the past 20 years and not once was anybody admitted for trichinosis. Tell, me how many reported case of trichinosis have been reported in the U.S.? Beef can also become infected with the trichinella worm, hence, your claim that trichinosis is why the pig is haram, is a canard.
Khi- Again the chances of beef getting infected with such are very low compared to pig, THE ONLY ANIMAL WHICH ROLLS ITSELF IN ITS OWN SHIT. shock Yuck!!!
Yeah...as YOU say, but not science and experience.
Khi- Oh yes it does. Wonder what kinna science your talking about. Its ONLY the media which keeps swine flesh from being labelled as garbage.
As Idol pointed out, why aren't rats haram? What is more filthy than them? You have not proven your assertion.
shockKhi- As i said pig is more filthy. At least rats dont roll themselves in their own shit. Infact rats are not by nature unclean but only because of the dirty and still impetrfect drainage systems which we humans have created. Lets take on the verses you quoted now
4160 For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from Allah's Way;-
Comment This verse doesnt say anything regarding pig being lawful or unlawful. And also pig is neither good nor wholesome.
51 O ye who believe! fulfil (all) obligations. Lawful unto you (for food) are all four-footed animals, with the exceptions named But animals of the chase are forbidden while ye are in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb for Allah doth command according to His will and plan.
Khi- You underlined the 1st part and left out the 2nd which i underlined now. And one of the exception NAMED is PIG.
55 This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them.
Khi- Yes and pig is neither good nor pure.
6146 For those who followed the Jewish Law, We forbade every (animal) with UNDIVIDED HOOFS, 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).
Khi- It should be UNDIVIDED hoofs. Sheep and ox DIVIDE the hoofs. So does the pig, ok, BUT that does NOT mean GOD didnt forbid anything else to the Jews. The above verse doesnt say "we ONLY prohibited this this and this for the Jews". It is a general statement mentioning PART, NOT necessarily the whole of the list of prohibitons to the Jews. Can you prove otherwise??? So the verses youve presented proof nothing in your favour and now youve gotta show how "lahmul khinzeer" can be grammatically correct if "khinzeer" be an adjective as you claim. Btw if "khinzeer" were to mean "that which I dislike" in the Quran then we would have a serious problem and contradiction. This means that now, according to this defnition, whatever I, as a human, dislike would be haram, wouldnt it?? Whereas only GOD makes things haram and halal and Hes condemned those who make haram that which hes made halaal. How do you explain that then? GOD Bless!
-
Salam AhmedBahgat,
Peace PRIEST_BOKMEI
I can tell you honestly that you are a laugh if you don't speak arabic and arguing with native arabic speakers
sorry i could not hold it
bad luck mate, but keep learning
end of discssion with you
THis is a good decision. It is like if you pour water in sand cry
Unfortunately some members see only their own logic and see only what they want to see.About that my question about lahm alkhinzeer and alkhinzeer, I don' think that it is a silly question lol
lahm alkhinzeer cannot mean the whole body of this animal. If this is the case, we should read only alkhinzeer like almaytat instead of lahm alkhinzeer
6145a. maytatan aw daman masfoohan aw khinzeeran fa-innahu rijsun aw fisqan ohilla lighayri Allahibihi
instead of
6145b. maytatan aw daman masfoohan aw lahma khinzeerin fa-innahu rijsun aw fisqan ohilla lighayri Allahibihi16115a. Innama harrama AAalaykumu almaytata wa alddama wa alkhinzeera
Instead of
16115b. Innama harrama AAalaykumu almaytata wa alddama wa lahma alkhinzeeri2173a. Innama harrama AAalaykumu almaytata wa alddama wa alkhinzeera
instead of
2173b. Innama harrama AAalaykumu almaytata wa alddama wa lahma alkhinzeeriI raised this question for two reasons
-
"lahm" is an argument againt those who claim that alkhinzeer concerns all animal which "have a diseased appearance".(6145a, 16115a and 2173a)
-
According the Reading, alkhinzeer is a noun, if the God forbad the whole body of this animal, then the word lahm is not necessary to use it.
"almayta" means the whole body, there is no need to say lahm almayta
Idem for alkhinzeer.
I hope you see my point
Regards
-
-
Peace sister marie
sorry to say it is a silly question, i reckon you have convinced me that it is not a silly question, I concede
my guess would be, possibly Allah knows that other parts of the khanzir can be used or consumed for the benifit of mankind, i really don't know, but I have to say if the Lahm is rapped around all the bones and even not around bones, i.e. Lahm is in every where in the body, even the stomach consist of lahm, I do not think lahm only include the muscle tissue, possibly any eatable part of the An'am, , how we can totally isolate the allowable parts that do not have lahm from the lahm?
your note regarding why God associated lahm with khanzir and not "Maita", "Mutradia", "Natiha" "Wa Ma Akal Al Sabe" etc. etc., is not a bad question at all that is how I started to give it merit
however I showed you in the Quran that Allah also used Lahm with the word dead, i know it was used as in a fugerative manner, but the literal meaning stays the same, and obvioulsy Allah can use it if He wishes, possibly He did not wish to use it with the Khanzir, or possibly there is a hidden message, again I don't really know and I think I will not be abe to figure this one out so I will take it as it means the whole pig
it is going to be hard to know which part in the Khanzir that does not have Lahm, possinbly bones if we consider lahm is only the muscle tissue, but again it can mean any eatable part of the whole An'am "Allah only Knows"
The point is who will leave the lahm and eat the other things?, I know people does eat the other things but with the lahm as well, but for an animal that already have a filthy repuation, who will do it?, bones are not eatable btw but possibly they make soup on it?, i really don't know, i reackon a soup made from pigs bones will stink bad, never tried though, I tried mortedella over 25 years ago and it was fantastic I have to say, and many times now when I see it at the displays I think of buying a 100 grams only as one off, but I quickly control myself
because I take it as an order from Allah even if the ham is the best meat ever,
sex is good and with protection the risk is min and no kids will come, would that make it ok?, of course not because it was an order from Allah to not to have sex outside the marriage wedlock
so if the hidden message are other things than the lahm that are allowed to be eaten, I say this is impossible to follow and consequently not following it will constitute no harm
Allah knows best
peace sister
-
Salam brother Ahmad,
Thanks for your reply and sincerity )
however if I try to answer your question, I'd say the comst commonly eaten part is the flesh
You are correct.
Allah did not tell us to eat the bones of the cow, but we eat it because its flesh was allowed
In the light of the Reading, the whole body of the cow is lawfull (51, 6142-144)
I do not think lahm only include the muscle tissue
Personnally I oppose lahm/meat to shahm/fat.
"lahm" is around the bones but the heart is also a muscle tissue. Lahm in general way is closely linked to the digestive system (liver, the spleen, trippes, kidneys..). Then both are unhealthy for us.
my guess would be, possibly Allah knows that other parts of the khanzir can be used or consumed
like the fat.
Peace