truth and Ahmed Bahgat...why are you avoiding this question?
-
PEACE, IDMKHIZIR,
PBM You've refuted nothing. That pigs don't have claws, in conjunction with ayats 4160, 55, and 16116, absolutely refutes your silly superstitious notion that khinzeer means the animal pig. You, see...mate, there is absolutely no way that you or the others can go to Al-Quran and prove definitively that the animal specie pig, was ever haram to the Jews. However, I, as a result of ayat 6146, can definitively prove that, the animal specie pig, was not one of the haram animals to the Jews. I know this truth hurts you to the very core of your being, but it's simply time to accept it...mate.
Khi- That is where you are wrong. You cannot prove anything, not to mention definitely prove. Where does 6146 or any other verse in the Quran for that matter say that those were the ONLY animal prohibitions for the Jews? Therefore you are just conjecturing.
733 Say My Lord has only made haram indecencies...and that you say of Allah what you do not know.
1736 And do not follow that of which you have no knowledge; surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that
If Al-Quran does not mention, definitively, any other animals as being haram, outside of those which are definitively named in ayat 6146, then for you to assume that there may be others that are haram i.e. the pig, is to conjecture that there is. To then accept that conjecture as definitive truth and follow it, is per ayats 733 and 1736, haram to do . You cannot declare something to be haram based on a conjecture, it is haram to do so. You can only declare something to be haram when Allah, definitively, has declared that something to be haram. If you don't know for a certainty know something is haram, then it is haram to declare as such. You cannot declare something to be haram on a conjecture. I cannot make this concept any plainer for you. Either you understand and accept this or you don't, but I am not going to repeat this to you again.
On the other hand taking "khinzeer" to mean "animal pig" in the Quran, which it obviously does, and considering the verses where GOD says that the food of the people of the book was made lawful to us, we can likewise conclude that the "animal pig" was made haram for the Jews. Only if 6146 would have said "ONLY forbidden for the Jews was..." would have your claim been correct. GOD Bless!
If khinzeer obviously means the specie of animal pig, then please provide the Quranic EVIDENCE where Allah, definitively, made the pig haram to the Jews/People of the Book. If you cannot do this, then you are only conjecturing and following that conjecture as truth---and that is haram to do. According to ayat 6146, Allah made only made the species of animals with claws haram to the Jews. Pigs don't have claws, thus, they are not in the group of haram animals. With this in mind then, ayat 55 proves that the pig is halal for those who follow Al-Quran, because the pig was never made haram to the Jews, that it was, in fact, halal for them whether they accepted that fact or not. Hence, once again, per ayat 55, what was halal to the Jews as food is halal to the Muslim as food. I cannot make this concept any plainer for you. Either you understand and accept this or you don't, but I am not going to repeat this to you again.
Peace.
-
If Al-Quran does not mention, definitively, any other animals as being haram, outside of those which are definitively named in ayat 6146, then for you to assume that there may be others that are haram i.e. the pig, is to conjecture that there is. To then accept that conjecture as definitive truth and follow it, is per ayats 733 and 1736, haram to do . You cannot declare something to be haram based on a conjecture, it is haram to do so. You can only declare something to be haram when Allah, definitively, has declared that something to be haram. If you don't know for a certainty know something is haram, then it is haram to declare as such. You cannot declare something to be haram on a conjecture. I cannot make this concept any plainer for you. Either you understand and accept this or you don't, but I am not going to repeat this to you again.
Khi- Salam. Likewise you cannot declare something to be HALAL based on conjecture, more so as the grammatical evidence in the Quran clearly proves that "khinzeer" is used for the animal pig. This is what makes me certain that the animal is meant, otherwise your argument might have carried some weight but also not a proof unless you could show that the Quran explicitly says that animal prohibitons in 6146 were the ONLY ones to the Jews. In that case you would be right but now coz of the grammatical form the argument is over. And once again it poses no contradiction coz 6146 DOES NOT say that those were the ONLY animal prohibitions to the Jews.
-
Salam PBM,
However, I, as a result of ayat 6146, can definitively prove that, the animal specie pig, was not one of the haram animals to the Jews. I know this truth hurts you to the very core of your being, but it's simply time to accept it...mate.
Khi- As i said 6146 CAN NEVER be used to PROVE that "khinzeer" cannot mean the aninmal pig simply because the verse does NOT say that those were all animal prohibitons to the Jews. Thus it may simply list a part of the animnal prohibitons. So we have to go over to other means/verses to prove what the meaning of "khinzeer" is and that was done by the grammatical form. This grammatical form then further PROVES that 6146 lists ONLY part of the animal prohibitions and that pig was prohibited for the people of the book. Get it now? GOD Bless!
-
Salam PBM,
However, I, as a result of ayat 6146, can definitively prove that, the animal specie pig, was not one of the haram animals to the Jews. I know this truth hurts you to the very core of your being, but it's simply time to accept it...mate.
Khi- As i said 6146 CAN NEVER be used to PROVE that "khinzeer" cannot mean the aninmal pig simply because the verse does NOT say that those were all animal prohibitons to the Jews. Thus it may simply list a part of the animnal prohibitons. So we have to go over to other means/verses to prove what the meaning of "khinzeer" is and that was done by the grammatical form. This grammatical form then further PROVES that 6146 lists ONLY part of the animal prohibitions and that pig was prohibited for the people of the book. Get it now? GOD Bless!
You just don't get it and I cannot make it any plainer to you.
Peace.
-
Khi- As i said 6146 CAN NEVER be used to PROVE that "khinzeer" cannot mean the aninmal pig simply because the verse does NOT say that those were all animal prohibitons to the Jews. DOES NOT say that those were the ONLY animal prohibitions to the Jews.
That's the point, IMDkhizir!...we CANNOT declare smething haram with out absolute ceratinty of it and, whatever Allah has not definitively declared to be haram, we CANNOT make that thing haram. DO YOU GET THIS BASIC CONCEPT?? If you don't believe me, then ask Wakas or Joe or Zenje.
-
what a load of non sense
The Quran made the pig Haram in 3 locations
we are not making the pig haram on the jew, we don;r give a fluke on the jew
the verse which says don't make things haram is talking about the things allowed for muslims you load of non sense
and consequently it was Allah who made the pigs forbidden on the Muslim, forget the jews
your argument that we made things forbidden while it is allowed for us is laughable lol lol lol , now the pig was exxplicitly forbidden on the muslims in 3 locations in the Quran we we did not make it forbidden on us
hey can you answer this question
1 + 1 = ?
let me see if hold the basics of rational
-
we are not making the pig haram on the jew, we don;r give a fluke on the jew
Allah chose the words in ayat 6146, yet, you say, "we don't give a fluke on the jew". Is there any wonder why you don't know what you are talking about?
the verse which says don't make things haram is talking about the things allowed for muslims you load of non sense your argument that we made things forbidden while it is allowed for us is laughable lol lol lol , now the pig was exxplicitly forbidden on the muslims in 3 locations in the Quran we we did not make it forbidden on us
nope If the pig is haram in 3 locations, as you claim, then 4160, 55, and 6146, contradicts your claim, because as even you had to admit...pigs don't have claws, thus, the pig cannot be haram in 3 locations. It is simply your imagination playing tricks on you. lol .
-
Khi- As i said 6146 CAN NEVER be used to PROVE that "khinzeer" cannot mean the aninmal pig simply because the verse does NOT say that those were all animal prohibitons to the Jews. DOES NOT say that those were the ONLY animal prohibitions to the Jews.
That's the point, IMDkhizir!...we CANNOT declare smething haram with out absolute ceratinty of it and, whatever Allah has not definitively declared to be haram, we CANNOT make that thing haram. DO YOU GET THIS BASIC CONCEPT?? If you don't believe me, then ask Wakas or Joe or Zenje.
Khi- The grammatical form of "lahmul khinzeer" proves with certainty that what is meant is the "animal pig" and it doesnt contradict 6146 because that verse does NOT say that those were the ONLY animal prohibitions for the Jews. If it did ONLY then would it make a contradiction. On the other hand if we take "lahmul khinzeer" to mean "that meat which I dislike" then wer doing exactly what your accusing me off coz then wer deciding whats haram based on our likes and dislikes. Ok you may claim the "i" refers to GOD becoming "forbidden to you is... and that MEAT which I(GOD) dislike(for you)". Now all the prohibitions except "lahm khinzeer" are not meat so the logical qurstion now arises which meat does GOD dislike for us as he didnt mention any in the Quran except "lahmul khinzeer"? And voilla, once again it is left upto the humans to decide thus contradicting the verses where GOD forbids us to make things haram or halal based on our wishes. So it's your meaning which causes the contra. Get it? GOD Bless!
-
Khi- As i said 6146 CAN NEVER be used to PROVE that "khinzeer" cannot mean the aninmal pig simply because the verse does NOT say that those were all animal prohibitons to the Jews. DOES NOT say that those were the ONLY animal prohibitions to the Jews.
That's the point, IMDkhizir!...we CANNOT declare smething haram with out absolute ceratinty of it and, whatever Allah has not definitively declared to be haram, we CANNOT make that thing haram. DO YOU GET THIS BASIC CONCEPT?? If you don't believe me, then ask Wakas or Joe or Zenje.
Khi- The grammatical form of "lahmul khinzeer" proves with certainty that what is meant is the "animal pig" and it doesnt contradict 6146 because that verse does NOT say that those were the ONLY animal prohibitions for the Jews. If it did ONLY then would it make a contradiction. On the other hand if we take "lahmul khinzeer" to mean "that meat which I dislike" then wer doing exactly what your accusing me off coz then wer deciding whats haram based on our likes and dislikes. Ok you may claim the "i" refers to GOD becoming "forbidden to you is... and that MEAT which I(GOD) dislike(for you)". Now all the prohibitions except "lahm khinzeer" are not meat so the logical qurstion now arises which meat does GOD dislike for us as he didnt mention any in the Quran except "lahmul khinzeer"? And voilla, once again it is left upto the humans to decide thus contradicting the verses where GOD forbids us to make things haram or halal based on our wishes. So it's your meaning which causes the contra. Get it? GOD Bless!
Forget it. Stay with what you have.
Peace.
-
Khi- As i said 6146 CAN NEVER be used to PROVE that "khinzeer" cannot mean the aninmal pig simply because the verse does NOT say that those were all animal prohibitons to the Jews. DOES NOT say that those were the ONLY animal prohibitions to the Jews.
That's the point, IMDkhizir!...we CANNOT declare smething haram with out absolute ceratinty of it and, whatever Allah has not definitively declared to be haram, we CANNOT make that thing haram. DO YOU GET THIS BASIC CONCEPT?? If you don't believe me, then ask Wakas or Joe or Zenje.
Khi- The grammatical form of "lahmul khinzeer" proves with certainty that what is meant is the "animal pig" and it doesnt contradict 6146 because that verse does NOT say that those were the ONLY animal prohibitions for the Jews. If it did ONLY then would it make a contradiction. On the other hand if we take "lahmul khinzeer" to mean "that meat which I dislike" then wer doing exactly what your accusing me off coz then wer deciding whats haram based on our likes and dislikes. Ok you may claim the "i" refers to GOD becoming "forbidden to you is... and that MEAT which I(GOD) dislike(for you)". Now all the prohibitions except "lahm khinzeer" are not meat so the logical qurstion now arises which meat does GOD dislike for us as he didnt mention any in the Quran except "lahmul khinzeer"? And voilla, once again it is left upto the humans to decide thus contradicting the verses where GOD forbids us to make things haram or halal based on our wishes. So it's your meaning which causes the contra. Get it? GOD Bless!
Forget it. Stay with what you have.
Peace.
Dear Khizar,
In another thread I commended your astuteness in seeing this contradiction which many missed altogether.
PB/DQ's avoidance of this matter was reflected in the vigour with which they argued the backup "If it's good for Jews it's good for me" way until that was also shown false by arguments I and others have presented.
PB/DQ's enthusiasm on the 'swine is halal' topic started by them defining "lahmu khinzir" as being "meat that is ill seeming" - and what should have been obvious is that this is a completely subjective thing as you have correctly stated.
PB/DQ is not someone who I suspect likes to admit defeat easily, but her/his response above indicates that they are defeated fully on this matter. I think that they just need to be given room to save face.
Best Regards.
-
PB/DQ is not someone who I suspect likes to admit defeat easily, but his response above indicates that they are defeated fully on this matter. I think that they just need to be given room to save face.
LOL! Don't mistake my terminating my discussion with Khizar as me recanting my position or I that I am defeated. Khizar, simply cannpt grasp the simple fact that, humankind cannot make anything which Allah didn't, period. There is no possible for anyone to declare the pig haram, because the people of the book, whose food is lawful to us, never had the pig made haram to them, hence, their food is alwful to us. He does not understand this, so there is no point in my continuing to bang my head against his wall.
In fact...none of you understand this very simple syllogismlol
-
PB/DQ is not someone who I suspect likes to admit defeat easily, but his response above indicates that they are defeated fully on this matter. I think that they just need to be given room to save face.
LOL! Don't mistake my terminating my discussion with Khizar as me recanting my position or I that I am defeated. Khizar, simply cannpt grasp the simple fact that, humankind cannot make anything which Allah didn't, period. There is no possible for anyone to declare the pig haram, because the people of the book, whose food is lawful to us, never had the pig made haram to them, hence, their food is alwful to us. He does not understand this, so there is no point in my continuing to bang my head against his wall.
In fact...none of you understand this very simple syllogismlol
I think you'll find it hard to find anyone to reasonably discuss things with you anymore. As long as you consider people as 'opponents' as you do, and continue the way you are, you are free to wander in your own opinions.
I suspect that you are trying to defend your error however at all costs, because you've chosen to eat swine based on your interpretations and to recant now would show up your error. Obstinacy will only harden you further.
peace/
-
I think you'll find it hard to find anyone to reasonably discuss things with you anymore. As long as you consider people as 'opponents' as you do, and continue the way you are, you are free to wander in your own opinions.
I have not given any opinons. This another miconception your cling to. Allah, per ayat 733, forbids the giving of opinion about Him and His Deen. Read the following
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4013&highlight=great+contradiction
I suspect that you are trying to defend your error however at all costs, because you've chosen to eat swine based on your interpretations and to recant now would show up your error.
Your suspicions are incorrect. Recant?! LOL! certainly you jest. You are in a dream world. You nor any of the others, have given a Quranic refutation to ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116. All you do is repeat the same ayats where khnizeer is mistranslated and say that is your refutation. Sorry, but that is not going to fly. There is no defeating ayats 4160 and 55...and well you know it.
Obstinacy will only harden you further.
You are speaking about yourself.
-
You nor any of the others, have given a Quranic refutation to ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116.
Refuting 'ayats' ??
Are you really aware of what you are writing?
Peace.
Better...are you aware of their meanings?...apparently not.