CONCLUSION OF THE SWINE DEBATE

unknownuser

Peace Ahmed,

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

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

Here's what PB is requesting

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

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

unknownuser

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of account for PBM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

unknownuser

Peace Ahmed,

Peace Bro

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's what PB is requesting

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

ok for your sake I will look at it later today

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

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

peace,

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

cheers

unknownuser

AHMED,

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

unknownuser

AHMED,

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

as I sated bro I will look at it later today

note taken

peace

unknownuser

Good deal, mate. wink

unknownuser

Ok bro here is a quick thing I found

Tapeworm-related diseases are a serious clinical and public health problem in South Africa

19 May 2005.

Dr John Fincham of the Medical Research Council has drawn attention to a recent survey conducted in 21 villages in the Alfred Nzo and Oliver Tambo districts in the Easter Cape, which found that between 28.2% and 52.2% of free-ranging pigs had pork tapeworm cysts in their muscles. The cysts are tapeworm larvae that develop into adult worms in people who eat under-cooked or raw meat from an infested pig. The pork tapeworm (Taenia solium) is the cause of most of the serious tapeworm-related disease in South Africa.

Early in May 2005 several children at a remote village in the Eastern Cape suffered from fits and other symptoms. This outbreak has served as a timely reminder of the danger posed by cysts of the pork tapeworm in the brain and other vital organs. A survey in 1993 reported that almost 90% of 239 patients with brain cysts seen in Cape Town hospitals were originally from the Eastern Cape. Epilepsy was present in 79.5% of this series and 51.5% were children.

From November 2004 to March 2005, scans done at a clinic in the Eastern Cape on 113 patients suffering from seizures, showed brain cysts in 43 cases (38.1%). The high prevalence of cysts in the brain reflects the traditional practice of allowing pigs to range freely and the lack of ffective sanitation in some rural districts. While the pigs are an important source of protein, they unfortunately scavenge exposed human faeces containing tapeworm eggs. Numerous larval cysts develop in the pig meat as a esult.

It is also easy for a person to swallow tapeworm eggs, which they can get from direct or indirect contact with a human tapeworm carrier. After ingesting eggs, cysts develop in human tissue (as in pigs). In people, cysts develop preferentially in the central nervous system, which can lead to epileptic seizures and other neurological problems. It is important to know that a person does not need to handle pigs or consume pork to ecome infected with the cysts.

During the recent outbreak at the village, one child died of an ncontrolled epileptic-like fit, which might have been caused by tapeworm cysts in the brain, and 26 were treated in hospital. There is an unconfirmed report hat 17 of the children had fits. A team investigating the outbreak reported that pigs roamed freely through the village and there was a lack of
effective sanitation.

Dr Fincham explained that no definitive diagnosis has been possible because of the remoteness of the village. A sensitive ELISA test is vailable that detects circulating antigen from cysts.

Diagnostic brain scans, radiographs and/or electroencephalograms would necessitate transporting the children for long distances to hospitals where facilities are available, which would be hard to arrange and costly. The lution to the problem in this village and generally, is to develop effective sanitation and a reliable supply of clean water, as well as to enclose pigs
so that they do not scavenge waste. Other measures are to cook all pig meat sufficiently to kill cysts; and regular, effective treatment of people against tapeworm in rural areas where pigs are produced and eaten.

Dr Fincham also made the point that pork tapeworm cysts can lodge and enlarge in the spinal cord, eye, muscle or elsewhere in our bodies. Pressure from cysts can impair vision, cause paralysis and have other seriously debilitating effects. Pig production by emerging farmers in resource-poor situations in all the South African provinces has increased substantially. This emphasises the need to inform pig producers and consumers about necessary precautions and safe practices.

?Hydatid disease caused by development of cysts of Echinococcus granulosus (a tapeworm of dogs and wild carnivores) is another serious tapeworm-related disease of humans in South Africa,? said Dr Fincham. The cysts develop mainly in the liver or lungs, but also in other
organs. Hydatid disease is much less frequent than pork tapeworm-related disease, but it is very serious because the cysts continuously enlarge. Treatment often includes radical surgery and cases are referred every year from rural areas to hospitals in urban centres. Prevention of
hydatid disease can be achieved by treating dogs regularly with effective anthelmintics, not feeding meat containing viable Echinococcus cysts to dogs, keeping dogs clean, and practising good personal hygiene especially by washing hands after handling dogs).

Issued by the SA Medical Research Council
For more information contact
Dr John Fincham
Medical Research Council
P O Box 19070
Tygerberg, South Africa 7505,
Tel +27 21 938 0482
Fax +27 21 938 0832
E-mail [email protected]
Source http//www.mrc.ac.za/pressreleases/2005/7pres2005.htm

unknownuser

Trichinella spiralis
(Trichinellosis or trichinosis)

Unlike many parasites that demonstrate a high degree of host specificity, Trichinella spiralis, the trichina worm, can be found in many species of carnivores and omnivores. Animals are infected with T. spiralis when they ingest infective larvae (juveniles) in raw or undercooked meat. The larvae mature into adults in the host's small intestine in a few weeks, and the female worms give birth to larvae. (The males die after fertilizing the females, and the females die after producing larvae.) The larvae enter the blood stream of the host and, eventually, end up in the host's muscles. Here the larvae mature into infective larvae, and the next host is infected when it eats these larvae. In the muscles the larvae cause a severe host reaction that results in soreness and tenderness of the muscles (view diagram of the life cycle).

Although this parasite probably only rarely causes fatalities in humans, it can cause extreme discomfort.

Trichinosis is probably best known as a parasite that humans contract from eating raw or undercooked pork.

Through an aggressive program of meat inspection, the incidence of trichinosis in pigs in the United States has been lowered to less than 1%, so it is unlikely (but not impossible) that pork products purchased in your local supermarket will contain Trichinella larvae. Most recent outbreaks of trichinosis in the United States have been traced to pork products from pigs that have not been inspected and that have been slaughtered privately. Because of its low host-specificity, almost any "wild" meat should be considered suspect, and hunters should be careful when preparing meat from their kills. In particular, a number of infections have been traced to contaminated bear meat.

Trichinella spiralis

Taxonomy, Common Name, Disease
? CLASS ADENOPHOREA
? SUBCLASS ENOPLIA
? ORDER STICHOSOMIDA (TRICHURATA)
? SUPERFAMILY TRICHOCEPHALOIDEA
? FAMILY TRICHINELLIDAE

Scientific name - Trichinella spiralis
Disease - trichinosis

Historical
Trichinosis in man is associated with the consumption of pork products, particularly uncooked or insufficiently cooked pork. The worm was first reported in man in 1835 and was first recorded in the United States in 1846. It was demonstrated that Trichinella caused serious disease in man in 1865. This nematode was first discovered by a medical student in London who noted during dissection of a cadaver that muscle tissue contained gritty particles which tended to dull a scalpel.

Hosts
Man, pig, rats and many other mammals. The natural hosts are flesh eating animals.

Management
Prevention -

Cook pork thoroughly (also flesh of bear, walrus, wild pigs).
Cook all garbage fed to hogs.
Proper meat handling, ordinary curing and salting of pork products will not kill encysted juveniles.
Freezing is effective if carried out properly. The freezing requirements differ with the size of the meat. Pieces not exceeding 6 inches in thickness require 20 days at 5F, 10 days at -10F, 6 days at -20F. Larger pieces require longer periods. Quick freezing and storage for 2 days is effective.

References

Schmidt, G.S., and L.S. Roberts. 1989. Chapter 24. Orders Trichurata and Dioctophymata Aphasmidian Parasites. in Foundations of Parasitology. Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing. St. Louis. 750 pages.
Chandler, A.C. and C.P. Read. 1961. Chapter 18. Trichuris, Trichinella, and Their Allies. Introduction to Parasitology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. 822 pages.
Noble, E.R. and G.A. Noble. 1973. Parasitology The Biology of Animal Parasites. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia. 617 pages.
Georgi, J.R. and M.E. Georgi. 1990. Parasitology for Veterinarians. W.B. Saunders Company. Philadelphia. 411 pages.

http//www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~parasite/trichinella.html

unknownuser

Water-related diseases
Japanese Encephalitis

Japanese encephalitis is a viral disease that infects animals and humans. It is transmitted by mosquitoes and in humans causes inflammation of the membranes around the brain. Intensification and expansion of irrigated rice production systems in South and South-East Asia over the past 20 years have had an important impact on the disease burden caused by Japanese encephalitis. Where irrigation expands into semi-arid areas, the flooding of the fields at the start of each cropping cycle leads to an explosive build-up of the mosquito population. This may cause the circulation of the virus to spill over from their usual hosts (birds and pigs) into the human population.

The cause
The virus causing Japanese encephalitis is transmitted by mosquitoes belonging to the Culex tritaeniorhynchus and Culex vishnui groups, which breed particularly in flooded rice fields. The virus circulates in ardeid birds (herons and egrets). Pigs are amplifying hosts, in that the virus reproduces in pigs and infects mosquitoes that take blood meals, but does not cause disease. The virus tends to spill over into human populations when infected mosquito populations build up explosively and the human biting rate increases (these culicines are normally zoophilic, i.e. they prefer to take blood meals from animals).

Distribution
Japanese encephalitis is a leading cause of viral encephalitis in Asia with 30,000-50,000 clinical cases reported annually. It occurs from the islands of the Western Pacific in the east to the Pakistani border in the west, and from Korea in the north to Papua New Guinea in the south. Because of the critical role of pigs, its presence in Muslim countries is negligible. JE distribution is very significantly linked to irrigated rice production combined with pig rearing.

From www.who.int

unknownuser

AHMED,

What you posted, has NOTHING to do with the following

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

Please confine your reply to the above four ayats, thanks.

unknownuser

mate I will after I finish work, my words is like a sword on me, it is 120 pm sydney time and I'm still at work

the above comments where quick read then copy paste and format

my comment to the verses will be all mine and will take me long

ok

peace

truth

Fine, so meat excludes fat, bone, and hoof material, thus, these are halal as food...is this your position? If so, then how do these things escape the "infectious germ" contamination, which you claim is inherent to the meat of pigs?

Looking forward to your reply. Peace.

The diseases of Trichinosis and the Taenia solium tapeworm are transmitted through encysted forms that lie dormant in the MEAT of swine.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosis
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taenia_solium

There are some other parasites also especially Toxoplasmosis whose primary host is the cat - but it does affect other animals -especially those that eat faeces/soil etc where the toxoplasmosis parasite is found making it especially prevalent in pork.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis

Again the encysted dormant form is in the meat of the animal.

truth

Peace,

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.

Who are the people of the Book according to you?

What were their dietary restrictions if any?

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

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

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

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

Where in all of that does it say the faeces of any animal is forbidden to be eaten?

Do people eat faeces of animals? Before you say faeces is not edible - you better check with pigs whether they have any objections to eating faeces. Do you require that detailed = completely specified?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - the reading does not have as its purpose to detail all the dietary restrictions of previous peoples - Jews, Christians or otherwise. So the fact that you don't find the statement restricting pigs (meat, bones or faeces for that matter) is not evidence that there was not such a restriction.

Regards.

unknownuser

Like I said, all of your notions about grammar, which you don't fully understand,

first of all, you can?t accuse me of not understanding the Arabic grammar, while at age 40 I?m not as perfect at Nahaw ?The name of the Arabic grammar? as I have been during my study years, but you would like to know something about me then let me say that I was a top student in the ?Nahaw? to a degree that I get full marks always and the teachers were highly impressed and they used to choose me to compete with other class rooms students or even different schools, in some occasions I was competing with students at uni while I was still in year 10, Allah is my witness

I can?t deny I forgot a lot of things but it is a matter of going back to a reference to refresh my mind in almost no time, the Arabic ?Nahaw? is a whole new world for the Arabic speakers, the majority of Arabic speakers know little about Nahaw, and I tell you it is not an easy thing either to learn

However you admitted of not knowing Arabic so I say you have absolutely no point but don?t forget that I suggested to you to take my refute to an Arabic language teacher or whoever you know who even speaks Arabic, because my grammar refute is a common thing in Arabic, most will know it even the ones with lil knowledge about Nahaw, this is simply because when you pronounce two words as one is an adjective to another ?BOTH MUST HAVE THE AL? or ?BOTH DON?T HAVE AL? other wise it will sound really odd, believe me man, I?m not kiddin here

So my grammar refute is MY STRONGEST ARGUMENT based on the submission that Allah will never do this grammar mistake

cannot refute ayats 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;-

(160)

-> That is what I said before and I will say it again. The verse never mentioned the Khanzir, neither it is telling us any new laws, rather the verse is telling us a fact, that because of 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;, these things that became forbidden may also include actions as well food. The verse actually has key words that we can cross refrence, ? ?, which means ?good things?

I.E. what became forbidden is some of the good things that were allowed before, if the food is the only concern we have in hand ?not the actions?, then the key word ?Taybat? can be matched with another verse that explain to us what was the Taybat of food that was allowed

?And We gave you the shade of clouds and sent down to you Manna and quails, saying "Eat of the good things We have provided for you" (But they rebelled); to us they did no harm, but they harmed their own souls.?

(57)

-> The above verse where Allah is telling us the Taybat of food He blessed the Jews with, we can clearly see that there was no mention of the pig ?Khanzir? as being a Taybat of food that was allowed, rather ? ?, which means ? Manna and quails?, manna is a type of rare fruit and you should know what what quails, you can see clearly after Allah listed these Taybat of food as a blessing to the Jews, He ordered them to eat from the good things He blessed them with ? , and you can clearly see the word Taybat ?Good? that is associated with what they should eat which was ? Manna and quails? that was given to them.

Your argument regarding verse 4160 that The Khanzir was one of the lawful Taybat to the jews in this verse is baseless because of the following

The Khanzir was never mentioned in verse 4160, as lawful neither forbidden nor Taybat (good)
Allah has told us some examples on the Taybat in verse 257 I posted above and we also see that the Khanzir was never listed but other things like ? Manna and quails?
The History of mankind tell us the Pigs was already forbidden on the Jews, and it is confirmed in the OT,

?And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.?

and we can see clearly that the Jews DON?T eat pork, unless they have been mislead as well

Many Far Eastern traditions also discourage the eating of pork. The 3,000 year old Confucian Book of Rites says, ?A gentleman does not eat the flesh of pigs and dogs.? Although many Chinese are avid eaters of pork today, physicians of ancient China recognized pork-eating as the root of many human ailments. Buddhists, Jains and Hindus usually avoid eating any kind of meat.

This concludes that Lahm Al Khanzir was bad for humans and was not ?Taybat? which means ?good?

Finally, verse 4160 only talk about the Taybat (good) food, consequently pigs can?t be included because it was already forbidden on them as I shown on the OT and as we know about the Jews nowdays

cannot refute ayats 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. ?.?

??? (5)

Bro you have absolutely nor argument in verse 55, because and again I see nothing explicit about the pigs that it is Taybat ? ??. The same key word appears here as well what a coincidence bro?, so my argument for verse 4160 stands here too

There is no mention of the pigs that it is from the Taybat
The verse started with a general statement that All and Only the Taybat are allowed
The next words regarding the food is a category of the general statement preceding it ?All the Taybat?, i.e. food can not be anything other than Taybat otherwise it will violates ?All The Taybat?
We have seen examples of the Taybat in verse 257 and the pig was not one of them
We know that The Jews don?t eat pork because according to their OT it was not Taybat and consequently we can not include the pork in the food of the people of the Book that was allowed to us because simply it was already forbidden on them and is not Taybat

cannot refute ayats 6146,

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

(146)

-> First of all, there is a new discovery that I just discovered NOW with the help of Allah ?Praise to Allah?, let me explain

if we look at Yusuf Ali Translation we will see that translated the following as being forbidden on the jews

a) every (animal) with undivided hoof
b) fat of the ox and the sheep except what adheres to their backs or their entrails, or is mixed up with a bone.

In Deut 1418 that I posted above we read

?And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.?

Clearly the OT passage states the swine is forbidden because IT DIVIDETH THE HOOF

Wow, would that mean what the Quran is talking about is a totally another event of Tahreem not the one that is stated in the OT as the pigs were already forbidden because it is not Taybat?

Let?s compare again, the OT Passage says the pig was forbidden because it has a divided hoof, while the Quran says it forbided animals with undivided hoof, but the Quran also say that was a penalty because of their ? wilful disobedience?, i.e. verse 6146 talks about a list of Taybat that was allowed to them then became forbidden as a penalty of their ? wilful disobedience? this list includes

The Taybat of the animals and birds with undivided hoof (sure the pig is not one of those because it is not Taybat and has a divided hoof)
The Taybat of the fat of the ox and the sheep

We know the above is taybat because Muslims are allowed to eat it, verse 257 will come here handy as well as it confirms to us that a lot of taybat was allowed to the jews as a blessings, in verse 6146 some of those Taybat became forbidden as a punishment NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TAYBAT

The meat of the pig has no place in here whatsoever

The above is based on my concession that the pig has a divided hoof while I see a divided hoof as claws because it is divided to grab or hold anything in between I will concede that it is some where between I a claw and a hoof, anyway if you look at the Guinea pig you will see clearly that it looks like claws, even the eatable pig, I have seen photos where their foot ends are divided into about 4, and if you ask a few around you will see that some will answer a claw and others will answer a hoof, also if you search the net for pig claws you will get a lot of links, however I conceded that the pig foot has divided hoof.

cannot refute ayats 16116,

?But say not - for any false thing that your tongues may put forth,- "This is lawful, and this is forbidden," so as to ascribe false things to Allah. For those who ascribe false things to Allah, will never prosper.?

(116)

I?m really puzzled what this verse has to do with the meat of the pigs?, but possibly Allah made you post it to bring the evidence of your conviction with ya, you can?t just say this verse talks about me, because the verse clearly says

? But say not - for any false thing that your tongues may put forth,-?, well my tongue did not say or tried to mess with the clear laws in the Quran, I?m actually agreeing with what it says 100%, but it seems it talks more about you, the Arabic words truly describe you, because you are the one who is coming with ? ?, i.e. ? your tongues may put forth?, and that is you who comes and try to describe a totally new meaning to the clear as light meaning in the Quran that the meat of the pig is forbidden and is not from the Taybat as well it was clear from the OT and the history and the new findings of the pig associated diseases that the meat of the pig is not Taybat and bad for humans, you reminded me with Dr Rashad Khalifa miracle verse 7431, as I see the verse truly describes him, anyway this will be something for Allah to rule on.

Finally the 100% perfect Quran can?t include this silly grammar mistake, hence the arabic garmmar confirms the meaning of the Khanzir as a common noun and means an animal called "pig", what left for me to repond to is the meaning of the word ?Rigsun?, but that will be tomorrow

peace

unknownuser

PBM Like I said, all of your notions about grammar, which you don't fully understand.

However you admitted of not knowing Arabic so I say you have absolutely no point but don?t forget that I suggested to you to take my refute to an Arabic language teacher or whoever you know who even speaks Arabic, because my grammar refute is a common thing in Arabic, most will know it even the ones with lil knowledge about Nahaw, this is simply because when you pronounce two words as one is an adjective to another ?BOTH MUST HAVE THE AL? or ?BOTH DON?T HAVE AL? other wise it will sound really odd, believe me man, I?m not kiddin here

If what you are stating is true, then your grammar argument will explain away ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 111116. Let's see. Btw, please stop with the "I don't know the Arabic language", baloney. Nowhere does Allah make knowing the Arabic language a requirement to understanding the terms in Al-Quran. Your Arabic language argument is specious and a canard.

So my grammar refute is MY STRONGEST ARGUMENT based on the submission that Allah will never do this grammar mistake

The mistake is not on Allah, but your supposed grasp of grammar.

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;-

That is what I said before and I will say it again. The verse never mentioned the Khanzir, neither it is telling us any new laws, rather the verse is telling us a fact, that because of 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;, these things that became forbidden may also include actions as well food. The verse actually has key words that we can cross refrence, ? ?, which means ?good things?...Your argument regarding verse 4160 that The Khanzir was one of the lawful Taybat to the jews in this verse is baseless because of the following

The Khanzir was never mentioned in verse 4160, as lawful neither forbidden nor Taybat (good)
Allah has told us some examples on the Taybat in verse 257 I posted above and we also see that the Khanzir was never listed but other things like ? Manna and quails?
The History of mankind tell us the Pigs was already forbidden on the Jews, and it is confirmed in the OT,

You've already presented this bogus argument, so why are you repeating it? In this Deen, "things" are divided into the halal and the haram. Under the category of the halal and the haram are foods and behaviors. Do you agree with this? If lahma khinzeer is the animal pig as you claim it is, then it must be determined if it is a halal thing/food or a haram thing/food---for anybody. Do you agree with this? Ayat 4160 then, is letting the reader know that---some things which were halal to the Jews had been made haram to them for their sins. Their food then, would also have to come under the halal and haram things, thus, even though khinzeer is not mentioned in the ayat it still hd to be either haram or halal for them.

?And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.?

and we can see clearly that the Jews DON?T eat pork, unless they have been mislead as well

Well, now you have a major contradiction. Deut. 148 says that...divided hoofed animals were haram, however, ayat 6146, says animals with claws were made haram to the Jews and, since pigs don't have claws (you keep forgetting this), you now have a contradiction between these two Books...which book do you know is correct? Anyway, divided hoof or whole hoof both are still--hooves. Thufr, cannot mean hoof in any regard as that would make goats, sheep and oxen haram, because all are hoofed animals. Thus, if the Jewish account that divided hoof animals were haram, then Allah would have used a word to in Al-Quran to differentiate divided hoof from whole whole hoof and thufr, DEFINITELY, is NOT that term. Let me ask you a question, why do you are Marie insist on trying to SNEAK in thufr to mean hoof? To define thufr a hoof is an outright lie.

We know that The Jews don?t eat pork because according to their OT it was not Taybat and consequently we can not include the pork in the food of the people of the Book that was allowed to us because simply it was already forbidden on them and is not Taybat

I've asked you to only prove you case via Al-Quran, yet, once again, you are bringing up the corrupted, thus, unreliable Torah. STAY IN AL-QURAN and prove what you are claiming Allah has said, thanks.

55This 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.

Bro you have absolutely nor argument in verse 55, because and again I see nothing explicit about the pigs that it is Taybat . The same key word appears here as well what a coincidence bro?, so my argument for verse 4160 stands here too 1) There is no mention of the pigs that it is from the Taybat

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.

What you continue to forget is this, just because it is does not mention the pig being tayyib/halal, does not mean that it isn't, hence, you are violating ayat 16116 by suggesting/declaring that it is haram. Unless Allah declares something to be haram, then it is tayyib and halal. NOWHERE, in Al-Quran, does Allah declare that the pig was haram to the Jews/those who come before the advent of Al-Quran. Ayat 6146, tells us what "things" (4160) food wise, He made haram to them and the pig DEFINITELY, does not come under those categories. Remember...PIGS DON"T HAVE CLAWS! lol

cannot refute ayats 6146,

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

-> First of all, there is a new discovery that I just discovered NOW with the help of Allah ?Praise to Allah?, let me explain

if we look at Yusuf Ali Translation we will see that translated the following as being forbidden on the jews

a) every (animal) with undivided hoof
b) fat of the ox and the sheep except what adheres to their backs or their entrails, or is mixed up with a bone.

In Deut 1418 that I posted above we readClearly the OT passage states the swine is forbidden because IT DIVIDETH THE HOOF

I've asked you to repeatedly toonly prove your case via Al-Quran, yet, once again, you are bringing up the corrupted, thus, unreliable Torah. STAY IN AL-QURAN and prove what you are claiming Allah has said, thanks.

Let me ask you a question, why do you are Marie insist on trying to SNEAK in thufr to mean hoof? To define thufr a hoof is an outright lie. Also, why do you continue to try to SNEAK in using the OT? The OT is NOT the Book of Guidance to mankind...Al-Quran IS. You are required by ayats 733 and 1736, to prove your assertions via Al-Quran. Where in Al-Quran does Allah state that the pig was a haram thing/food for the Jews/those who came before Al-Quran? Please post this ayat, thanks. When Allah mentions the Jews/those who came before Al-Quran in regard to haram "things"/food, He mentions ALL CLAWED animals as being haram and the fat of two hooved animals as being haram. Allah mentions nothing else definitively in regard to Jews/those who came before Al-Quran and haram food, period, end of story.

I?m really puzzled what this verse has to do with the meat of the pigs, but possibly Allah made you post it to bring the evidence of your conviction with ya, you can?t just say this verse talks about me, because the verse clearly says

16116 ? But say not - for any false thing that your tongues may put forth,-?, well my tongue did not say or tried to mess with the clear laws in the Quran, I?m actually agreeing with it says 100%, but it seems it talk more about you, because the Arabic words truly describe you, because you are the one that is coming with your tongues may put forth?, and that is you who comes and try to describe a totally new meaning to the clear as light meaning in the Quran that the meat of the pig is forbidden and is not from the Taybat as well it was clear from the OT and the history and the new findings of the pig associated diseases that the meat of the pig is not Taybat, you reminded me with Dr Rashad Khalifa miracle verse 7431, as I see the verse truly describes him, anyway this will be something for Allah to rule on.

Of course ayat 16116 applies to you DIRECTLY. You insist on making the pig haram, yet, you blatantly mistranslate thufr to mean hoof, when clearly, it does not mean that all, for if it did, then the sheep and oxen in ayat 6146, in their ENTIRETY and not just their fat, would have also been haram. You then continue to bring the known to be corrupted Torah as your evidence for why you are insisting that the pig is haram, when clearly, the known to be uncorrupted Quran makes no mention of the pig being haram for the Jews/those who came before Al-Quran. Al-Quran IS THE BOOK OF GUIDANCE FOR ALL OF MANKIND, it is the final, complete, and perfect guidance, hence the Torah acct. is null and void as it contradicts Al-Quran. You violate 16116, because you declare the pig to be haram, yet, you cannot by way of Al-Quran prove that the pig, by the order of Allah, was haram to the Jews/those who came before Al-Quran.

YOU HAVE FAILED TO PROVE YOUR CLAIM THAT THE PIG IS HARAM. THUS, FOR YOU TO CONTINUE TO CLAIM THAT IT IS HARAM, MAKES YOU GUILT OF SAYING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH THAT, SOMETHING IS HARAM WITHOUT DEFINITIVELY PROVING THAT IT IS.

Finally the 100% perfect Quran can?t include a silly grammar mistake that must confirm the meaning of the Khanzir as a noun and is the animal called pig, what left for me to repond to is the meaning of the word ?Rigsun?, but that will be tomorrow

LOL! You do not understad your own grammar, so forget going on to rijsun because you still have not refuted , by way of Al-Quran, ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116.

There is refuting ayat 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116. wink

unknownuser

Peace PBM

you are not only refuted but EXPOSED

now leave it to the public to judge and stop ranting because it is nothing but a thin air and clearly exposes your confusion in the most simplest and important thing in life, the belief in Allah

go an learn arabic before you rant BS, because you are an embarrassment to yourself, sorry to tell you that

who are you who knows nothing about arabic to come and explain very clear arabic words?

I tell you who you are, you are a confused human like the non arab bukhari, who thought he can explain the Quran via human words, and you think you can explain it via your flawed words, lol

well I explained it using Allah words, in the Quran and in the OT

you don't believe in the previous books and this will warrant your "Kufr"

unless you explain to me how you statisfy this requirment by Allah to believe in the previous books inspired by Him?

possibly you just consider it a fugertive non existant simbol of an uncorrupted previous books, how can you explain that?

anyway no more talks about the pigs because it stinks already

I have one more thing to explain which is Rijsun then we move on

how was the ham and egg in your breakfast, good?

peace

unknownuser