Alkhineer is a noun in the light of the Reading
-
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