CONCLUSION OF THE SWINE DEBATE

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