Is Swine Hallal

unknownuser

Peace Priest Bokmei,

For the sake of keeping the discussion organized, I have divided it into different sections/headings. Even though this post is directed towards PB, I would urge all of you to read all of the following very carefully

FORBIDDEN FOOD FOR MANKIND

Given that 6145 lists food made haram for mankind, and that mankind includes Jews, "already dead", blood, "lahma khinzeerin", and "what is dedicated to other than Allah" is haram for Jews also.

6145 just factually states what is haram for mankind, including jews. There is no chronology in that statement. 6145 nowhere says "from this day onwards.......".

Qur'aan authenticates the previous scriptures

241 And believe in what I have sent down, authenticating what is already with you, and do not be the first to disbelieve in it! And do not purchase with My verses a cheap gain, and of Me you shall be aware.

297 Say "Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel, then know that he has sent it down into your heart by God's permission, authenticating what is already present, and a guide and good news for the believers."

33 He sent down to you the Scripture with truth, authenticating what is present with it; and He sent down the Torah and the Injeel.

Allah also clearly says that Qur'aan in addition to authenticating the previous scriptures, supersedes them also

551 And We have sent down to you the Scripture with truth, authenticating what is present of the Scripture and superseding it. So judge between them by what God has sent down, and do not follow their desires from what has come to you of the truth.

So when an ayat gives a factual information, like forbidden foods for mankind, it is authenticating what was in the previous scriptures, and superseding it. Factual statement about forbidden food in Qur'aan, therefore, means that the forbidden categories of food have been forbidden for mankind, throughout history. The only way you can say that those four categories of food were not forbidden for Jews before revelation of Qur'aan, is if there is another ayat in Qur'aan that says that explicitly.

Show me the ayat in Qur'aan that says that Allah DID NOT forbid to the Jews what is already dead, blood, lahma khinzeerin, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah".

This clearly establishes that the following four categories of food is forbidden for ENTIRE MANKIND, INCLUDING JEWS, and that restriction has ALWAYS been there

Already dead
Blood
Lahma khinzeerin
What is dedicated to other than Allah

Nothing can change that.

You yourself agreed to that in one of your previous posts, as brother Thor has mentioned

O.k., let me try it from this angle. You will agree that Al-Quran, per ayat 2185, was sent to all of mankind for guidance; there is no other book or books for mankinds guidance. Included in mankind are the Jews. I'm certain that you also agree with that. Now, although ayat 6147 does not mention the Jews specifically, ayat 6147 does mention what is haram for mankind--the Jews included, thus, the things made haram in ayat 6147 are haram for the Jews as well. I'm certain you must agree with this also. Also keep in mind that, it would be very cumbersome to list all that is halal in Al-Quran, hence, Allah, simply names what is haram and what is not haram is halal. With this in mind then there is no contradiction between ayats 6146-7 and 148 at all.

and then a few posts later you repeatedly say

the Jews, were never forbidden, by Allah anyway, to eat it.

PB, YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF. By saying that lahma khinzeerin is halal for Jews, and not forbidden for them, you are contradicting 6145 and YOURSELF (see the underlined portion of your statement above).

ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR JEWS

6146 is a continuation of 6145, that specifies ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS of food, placed on Jews because of punishment for their rebellion.

The list of forbidden food for Jews, before revelation of Qur'aan, therefore, would be as follows per 6145 and 6146

Already dead
Blood
Lahma khinzeerin
What is dedicated to other than Allah
All that have claws
Fat of cattle and sheep except what is attached to back, entrails, or mixed with bone.
GOOD THINGS

55 Today, the good things have been made lawful to you,

"good things" per 55 are obviously all food except what is restricted per 6145, 53, and 2173.

2172 O you who believe, eat of the good things We have provided for you, and be thankful to God; if it is Him you serve.
2173 He has ONLY forbidden for you what is already dead, and the blood, and the meat of pig, and what was dedicated to other than God. Whoever finds himself forced out of need and without disobedience or animosity, then there is no sin upon him. God is Forgiving, Merciful.

FOOD OF JEWS LAWFUL TO US

55 Today, the good things have been made lawful to you, and the food of those who have been given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them;

The food of the Jews would be all that is lawful for them CURRENTLY, and that would be lawful for believers too. What is lawful for them CURRENTLY would be what they believe is lawful for them according to THEIR SCRIPTURE. Qur'aan also tells us what is lawful for them too; it would be all food except what is restricted to them per 6145 AND 6146 as I mentioned above.

BELIEVERS FOOD LAWFUL FOR JEWS

55 Today, the good things have been made lawful to you, and the food of those who have been given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them;

5 and 6 are halal for Jews as per 55 when it says "your food is lawful to them"

So 5 and 6 are not forbidden for Jews anymore. When exactly that restriction was removed, Allah does not tell us.

No MENTION OF "FOOD" in 350

350 "And authenticating what is present with me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden to you; and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so be aware of God and obey me."

All it quotes Jesus saying to Jews is "some of that which was forbidden to you". What that "some" is we do not know, so we cannot conjecture about it.

WHOLE OR PART OF QUADRUPEDS

51 Made lawful for you are all the cattle quadrupeds, except that which is being recited to you, and what you are not allowed to hunt of the game while you are under restriction. God decrees as He pleases.

Please note that it says "except THAT WHICH IS BEING RECITED TO YOU". It does not say "except the quadrupeds that are being recited to you". PB, why are you conjecturing that "that which is being recited to you" means a WHOLE QUADRUPED ? That is not what it says. All it says is "that which is......". "That" is referring to what is restricted in 53, simple.

If your twisted logic is true, then, per 53 "blood" is also forbidden, however, "blood" is not a whole quadruped, but its part. So "that which is....." in 51 CANNOT mean ONLY "whole quadruped/quadrupeds". It also includes "part of quadruped", as blood is part of quadruped, not whole.

Allah, makes haram an entire category of animals.

According to 6145, blood is forbidden, as well as lahma khinzeerin, both are part of animal. Allah gives certain restrictions of food; some of those restrictions mention entire categories of animals (e.g. already dead, "what is dedicated to other than Allah"), and some restrictions mention parts of animals (e.g. blood, lahma khinzeerin). Therefore, once again, "except that which is....." in 51 CANNOT mean ONLY "whole quadruped", but also includes "part of quadruped".

There is, therefore, no contradiction between 51 and 53

THE MEANING OF LAHMA KHINZEERIN

Let me give a simple example first, from English language

Lion is an animal
You can turn into an animal, if you do not use your ability to reason

In these 2 sentences, the same word "animal" is used. The reader, however, can easily discern that in the first sentence, "animal" means a LITERAL animal, but in the 2nd sentence, "animal" is used METAPHORICALLY/FIGURATIVELY.

Same with the usage of "khinzeerin" in Qur'aan.

6145 Qul la ajidu feema oohiya ilayya muharraman AAala taAAimin yatAAamuhu illa an yakoona maytatan aw daman masfoohan aw lahma khinzeerin fa-innahu rijsun

560 Qul hal onabbi-okum bisharrin min thalika mathoobatan AAinda Allahi man laAAanahu Allahu waghadiba AAalayhi wajaAAala minhumu alqiradata waalkhanazeera

Both ayaat, same word "khinzeer" is used (plural in 560), but the Arabic reader can easily discern that in 6145 it is being used literally whereas in 560 it is being used metaphorically or figuratively.

PROOF THAT "KHINZEERIN" IN 6145 IS LITERAL

3 proofs, based on Qur'aanic context, Arabic grammar, logic, and reason

A. For it to mean "bad/dirty" meat, the Arabic words are "lahmoun khinzeerin", according to grammar, and not "lahma khinzeerin". As everyone can see in 6145 transliteration above, the word is "lahma" and not "lahmoun"

B. If it means "bad/dirty" meat, then saying "forbidden is bad/dirty meat, for it is bad/dirty" would be redundant, and against the rules of grammar. That would imply "khinzeerin" being used as adjective of "lahma", and then using another adjective "rijsun" meaning the same, right after the first adjective meaning the same.

Please show ONE other ayat in Qur'aan, where Allah uses 2 adjectives in a row, meaning the same, for the same noun.

Given that "rijsun" is the word used by Allah in 6145 to mean "bad/unclean/dirty/filthy", how can you say that "khinzeerin" used in the same ayat is also an adjective of "lahma" meaning the same as "rijsun"?.

It is like saying "made haram is meat that is bad/dirty (khinzeerin), for it is bad/dirty (rijsun)" ("khinzeerin" as adjective, in adition to "rijsun" as adjective, according to your conjecture) which makes no sense and it is redundant to use 2 adjectives meaning the same, for the same noun; instead

"made haram is meat of pig (khinzeerin), because it is bad/dirty (rijsun)" ("khinzeerin" as noun, "rijsun" used as adjective) makes perfect sense.

C. Allah allows the restricted categories of food to be eaten when one is forced out of need. If one eats bad/dirty/rotten/foul meat, one will get food poisoning and will become violently sick/ill and even die. Would Allah allow people, when they are forced out of need, to eat something that can kill them ? Is that the mercy of Allah ?

LIST OF QUESTIONS FOR PRIEST BOKMEI

To make your task easier I have compiled a list of questions for you

Given that 6145 lists food made haram for mankind, and that mankind includes Jews, Why do you keep denying what Allah EXPLICITLY makes forbidden for Jews in 6145 ? Why do you keep saying that "lahma khinzeerin" is halal for Jews, whereas Allah has EXPLICITLY made it haram for them according to 6145 ?
Why do you keep denying that 6146 is a continuation of 6145, and because of that 6146 contains restrictions for Jews IN ADDITION to 6145, because of punishment ?
If you say that the foods mentioned in 6146 are the ONLY foods made haram for Jews, then before their punishment, was ALL food halal to them, including dead animals, blood, lahma khinzeerin, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah" ?
If you say that dead animals, blood, lahma khinzeerin, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah" is halal for Jews, then per 55 all those categories of food will also be halal for mankind, which would DIRECTLY CONTRADICT 6145, how would you explain that ?
Given that 6145 is a FACTUAL STATEMENT which means NO CHRONOLGY, why do you keep denying that it is not applicable to Jews in the times before revelation of Qur'aan, especially when Allah repeatedly says that Qur'aan authenticates previous scriptures ?
Why do you keep conjecturing that the word "that" in 51 ("except that which is being recited") means "whole quadruped" thereby creating contradiction with 6145 where one of the forbidden foods is blood, which is part of a quadruped ?
Given that "rijsun" is the word used by Allah in 6145 to mean "bad/unclean/dirty/filthy" as an adjective for lahma khinzeerin, how can you say that "khinzeerin" used in the same ayat is also an adjective of "lahma" meaning the same as "rijsun" ?
Please show ONE other ayat in Qur'aan, where Allah uses 2 adjectives in a row, meaning the same, for the same noun.
Given that the phrase in Arabic meaning bad/dirty meat using the word "khinzeerin" would be "lahmoun khinzeerin", and not "lahma khinzeerin", why do you keep insisiting that "LAHMA KHINZEERIN" means "bad/dirty meat" ?

Looking forward to your replies.

unknownuser

PEACE, THOR,

Now, if khaniza means the literal pig in ayat 53 then it must mean the same thing in, otherwise, a discrepancy occurs. SC, wants us to believe that 53 is literal while 560 is figurative, however, Allah, does not say that 560 is a similitude?, hence, 560, then, must also be literal (so as not to create a discreapancy) Now, how is that possible?! Does Allah actually physically transform human beings into gorillas and hogs?! Just imagine the kind of superstitious craziness which would result from believing that people were actually transformed into apes and pigs! If we can believe that, why can't the Christians and the Nation of Islam, for examples, believe that Allah transformed Himself into a human being! Allah's and His Laws simply do not function like this.

That is not what SC is saying at all which is apparent to those that are reading. SC is saying that both are literal words and the context determines how you choose to read it as. This ensures integrity of the words used consistently. The rest of his post is exaggeration and ranting.

Hmmm...why are you referring to yourself in third person?

SC Metaphors are gauged by CONTEXT and NOT the LITERAL words used...

Really? and how did you come by this knowing? Does Allah state this criterion for judging literal from not literal in His Quran? Prove this with Allah's ayats. If not, then you have simply made it up.

SCif the word used Khinzerin literally means ill seeming behaviour, then we are not supposed to be eating the meat of the ill seeming behaviour in 6145. (As priest bokmei said in his previous posts, I have yet to see him refute my points to this or even any evidence that khanazeer's meaning can be divided into three parts)...The way around it is to say, well it doesn't really say behaviour...

You misread what I wrote and the definition of khanaza. Khanaza, means..."that which I see as bad/unseemly/ill-seeming", but it also means the animal pig.

Now, the task of the believer is, to determine which definition Allah is using is His Quran, simple, yes? What I said was, what is ill-seeming/unseemly/not good/bad, can be applied easily with no discrepancy, to both behaviors and substances. If I said khanaza is defined as ill-seeming behavior, then I simply made a mistake in my wording, but I assure you that that was not what I meant.

SC 1a) to which one would ask then God turned them into 'bad I see' OR 'ill seeming' aka adjectives which cause problems when using it the SAME way in 6145 as highlighted in point 2. Or even stranger while using it in the same verse as God turned them into a descriptive behaviour. Right. God turned man into bad I see, or a man into ill-seeming or a man into bad. The word used must make sense on it's own in the sentence without adding to it outside of what the word actually means for it to be semantically correct as well. You can't say the word khanazeer literally means ill seeming behaviour, as it can only mean what it's definitions are.

We should not be eating 'meat I see bad' OR 'ill seeming meat' OR 'bad meat' in 6145. They are adjectives. That is NOT possible as an adjective is further used to ALREADY describe the word khinzeerin in 6145 itself as 'dirty/filthy/unclean' which is the same thing as what khanazeer is supposed to mean if we choose this meaning.

2a)This is a MAJOR redundancy which results in a meat that is described as meaning bad/dirty/ill seeming is ALREADY called that in the same verse 6145 by using an adjective rijsun to describe it. Thus, the only possible solution is khinzeer is pig/noun.

Double talk and convoluted mystifications. Let me ask you a few questions

Given that, khanaza, means "that which I see as bad", can't any type of meat not properly refrigerated be seen as "bad/ill-seeming/unseemly"? The homeless, driven by necessity, often eat meat just in this state. Is this not true? Likewise, when we look out at people, who habitually do the wrong thing more often than not, don't we see them as being bad people, meaning, isn't their behavior "bad"/ill-seeming/unseemly"?

edited to add

unknownuser

PEACE, DANISH,

I believe Nadia's last post (as well as earlier ones) holds a crucial/significant point, as per the Quran, that must be addressed and put to rest

2a)This is a MAJOR redundancy which results in a meat that is described as meaning bad/dirty/ill seeming is ALREADY called that in the same verse 6145 by using an adjective rijsun to describe it. Thus, the only possible solution is khinzeer is pig/noun.

If khinzeer is meant to be ill-seeming/bad, then what do you understand rijsun to mean? And if rijsun is meant to be ill-seeming/bad, then what meaning would khinzeer hold other than pig, wherever used?

Say I do not find in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden for an eater to eat of except that it be what has died of itself, or blood poured forth, or flesh of swine-- for that surely is unclean--

Main Entry RAJISA to disgrace and defile thunder be unclean commit foul deeds be filthy loudly be in doubt become hated.

I don't see what redundancy has to do with anything. Lahma khinzerin, that is, "flesh which looks bad/unseemly", is only being emphasized by the term rajisa. Allah, it appears, is only stressing just how 'unclean/bad" lahama khinzerin really is, and that it should only be consumed when absolutely necessary for one's survival. I don't see the problem here with rajisa. Perhaps you can clarify this for me. I think the redundancy notion is simply a canard on SC's part. If redundancy was an issue, why are so many things repeated in Al-Quran?

Peace, D.

unknownuser

SC,

Peace all,

The points are clear and concise in my multiple posts regarding as to what is the satisfactory conclusion. If anyone else has any questions as to what they are not clear on, I'll do my best to answer them. What I will NOT do, is repeat myself constantly for someone who is not pursuing fair debate. And by the way, to those following the debate, do note the way the questions have been phrased for yes or no answers, it's quite interesting wink

Unless new information comes up that I think I need to address, the case is closed.

LOL! I knew you were full of hot air, conjecture, and bluff. Listen, if you really knew what you were talking about, you'd have absolutely no problem answering a simple yes or no to those questions.

You're finished. I will turn my attention to Danish, Thor, and Tanveer. When you decide to answer those questions, we can continue our contact, otherwise, you simply have nothing to offer that is Quranic fact.

savage_carrot

Peace all,

Since this has got to do with Danish's questions, I'll try to answer...the post addressed to Thor is actually addressed to me ?

Really? and how did you come by this knowing? Does Allah state this criterion for judging literal from not literal in His Quran? Prove this with Allah's ayats. If not, then you have simply made it up.

One comes by this knowing by reading the quran. Danish gave very good examples like

Secondly, there are many words in the Quran, which carries the same meaning yet conveys both metaphorical and literal understandings, such as 'hand', 'blind', etc., don't you think?

I would add other examples like bowing and prostrating etc.

What I said was, what is ill-seeming/unseemly/not good/bad, can be applied easily with no discrepancy, to both behaviors and substances.

And what I said was that it is causing a discrepancy when using it as so, as detailed in my posts.

Double talk and convoluted mystifications. Let me ask you a few questions

Given that, khanaza, means "that which I see as bad", can't any type of meat not properly refrigerated be seen as "bad/ill-seeming/unseemly"? The homeless, driven by necessity, often eat meat just in this state. Is this not true? Likewise, when we look out at people, who habitually do the wrong thing more often than not, don't we see them as being bad people, meaning, isn't their behavior "bad"/ill-seeming/unseemly"?

Apparently, it's quite clear to others. Unless PB can address the issue of what rijsun means and what khanzeerin then means, he is in a redundancy of serious magnitude. Apart from that, the word must make complete grammatical/semantical sense as well, as to what it's conveying...keeping in mind its definition, when used in a sentence with whichever definition you slap it with. So once again, it remains to be explained why a noun is described by an adjective and is further described with another adjective, that mean the same.

Tanveer also asked the same questions repeatedly

Given that "rijsun" is the word used by Allah in 6145 to mean "bad/unclean/dirty/filthy" as an adjective for lahma khinzeerin, how can you say that "khinzeerin" used in the same ayat is also an adjective of "lahma" meaning the same as "rijsun" ?
Please show ONE other ayat in Qur'aan, where Allah uses 2 adjectives in a row, meaning the same, for the same noun.
Given that the phrase in Arabic meaning bad/dirty meat using the word "khinzeerin" would be "lahmoun khinzeerin", and not "lahma khinzeerin", why do you keep insisiting that "LAHMA KHINZEERIN" means "bad/dirty meat" ?

Lahma khinzerin, that is, "flesh which looks bad/unseemly", is only being emphasized by the term rajisa. Allah, it appears, is only stressing just how 'unclean/bad" lahama khinzerin really is, and that it should only be consumed when absolutely necessary for one's survival.

A noun is already described by an adjective and then again being emphasized by using another adjective that means the same? That makes the literary quality suffer, as well as create a redundancy when we know God chooses His words with logical precision. It is a serious redundancy indeed. Which does NOT happen if the word used is a noun. Each and every restriction should only be consumed when absolutely necessary, doesn't explain why lahma khinzeerin is singled out for use with a double adjective meaning the same for one noun in the same verse.

You're finished. I will turn my attention to Danish, Thor, and Tanveer. When you decide to answer those questions, we can continue our contact, otherwise, you simply have nothing to offer that is Quranic fact.

You are out of line with your comments, when YOU DECIDE TO ANSWER MY POSTS, I will answer yours. That is fair debate which you don't have the gumption to pursue. Unless you do, refrain from stupid remarks and do what we all come here to, debate and discuss FAIRLY.

unknownuser

PEACE, TANVEER,

Tell you what, answer the 15 questions which SC, refused to answer. She was terrified to go on record with a simple yes or no response, hence, she is only conjecturing and knows it. When you answer those questions, myself and all, will clearly know your position. Once this is clear, then I can respond to your questions with more efficiency. Will you go on record and answer those questions? Remember, it is you and the others, who are advocating that lahma khinzerin means the the flesh of swine, thus, the burden of proof is on you good people and not me.

Looking forward to the answers to those 15 questions.

unknownuser

Peace Priest Bokmei,

Tell you what, answer the 15 questions which SC, refused to answer. She was terrified to go on record with a simple yes or no response, hence, she is only conjecturing and knows it. When you answer those questions, myself and all, will clearly know your position. Once this is clear, then I can respond to your questions with more efficiency. Will you go on record and answer those questions? Remember, it is you and the others, who are advocating that lahma khinzerin means the the flesh of swine, thus, the burden of proof is on you good people and not me.

You have the guts to ask me to answer your questions when you have not answered mine, which I asked you BEFORE you asked me ?? That is being RUDE, DISCOURTEOUS, and DISRESPECTFUL.

Tell you what, read my previous post and answer the 9 questions at the end, which you have refused to answer. You are terrified to go on record with responses to my questions, hence, you are only conjecturing and know it. When you answer those questions, myself and all, will clearly know your position. Once this is clear, then I can respond to your questions with more efficiency. Will you go on record and answer those questions? Remember, it is you, who is conjecturing as to what lahma khinzeerin means, thus, the burden of proof is on you and not me.

Looking forward to the answers to my 9 questions.

unknownuser

PEACE, TANVEER,

You and SC, have my terms. I'm more than willing to answer your questions, but not before either you or SC, definitively, go on record as to exactly where you stand on these questions. It will take neither of you more than a couple of minutes to answer either yes or no, so what is the problem? Your's and SC's refusal to comply with such an easy task, can only mean that neither of you really knows what you are talking about

Please respond to those questions and then I will get to yours. In that, I asked SC first, perhaps you can persuade her to answer.

Loking forward to your reply.

Someone

Original Text (ar)
Total 4 results found

2173

55

6147

16116

Peace upon all,

There's a rule in arabic grammar that says that the adjective/ and the object being described/ should both be either with al/ or both without it.

In the four occurences, those in red indicates that it's not the case, meaning that al-khinzir is not an adjective for lahm (lahm not having al at the begining or sould be al-lahm). The case in blue can imply that it's anadjective, but the others are not.

I hope this helps.

unknownuser

Peace Priest Bokmei,

You and SC, have my terms. I'm more than willing to answer your questions, but not before either you or SC, definitively, go on record as to exactly where you stand on these questions. It will take neither of you more than a couple of minutes to answer either yes or no, so what is the problem? Your's and SC's refusal to comply with such an easy task, can only mean that neither of you really knows what you are talking about

I knew you were full of hot air, conjecture, and bluff. Listen, if you really knew what you were talking about, you'd have absolutely no problem answering my questions.

You have my terms. I'm more than willing to answer your questions, but not before you, definitively, go on record as to exactly where you stand on these questions, as I asked you first. It will not take you more than a few minutes to answer my questions, so what is the problem? Your refusal to comply with such an easy task, can only mean that you do not really know what you are talking about.

Please respond to those questions and then I will get to yours. Looking forward to your reply.

unknownuser

Peace Someone,

Thank you for explaining the Arabic rules of grammar. That helps tremendously and clarifies a lot, and proves beyond doubt that "lahma alkhinzeerin" cannot mean "bad/dirty meat" as "alkhinzeerin" cannot be an adjective for "lahma" according to Arabic grammar. Lahma Alkhinzeerin then HAS to mean meat of pig in 2173, 55, and 16116 and because of that, it obviously means the same in 6145 too.

Thank you for your kind input. God bless.

unknownuser

PEACE, TANVEER,

I knew you were full of hot air, conjecture, and bluff. Listen, if you really knew what you were talking about, you'd have absolutely no problem answering my questions.

You have my terms. I'm more than willing to answer your questions, but not before you, definitively, go on record as to exactly where you stand on these questions, as I asked you first. It will not take you more than a few minutes to answer my questions, so what is the problem? Your refusal to comply with such an easy task, can only mean that you do not really know what you are talking about.

The burden of proof remains with you. If you wish to continue to debate this topic and prove your claims, then you have my terms.

Please respond to those questions and then I will get to yours. Looking forward to your reply.

unknownuser

PEACE, SOMEONE, and ALL,

2173 He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine...

2173 Innama harrama AAalaykumu almaytata waddama walahma alkhinzeeri...

53 Forbidden to you (for food) are dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine,

53 Hurrimat AAalaykumu almaytatu waddamu walahmu alkhinzeeri...

560 Say "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah. those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine...

560 Qul hal onabbiokum bisharrin min thalika mathoobatan AAinda Allahi man laAAanahu Allahu waghadiba AAalayhi wajaAAala minhumu alqiradata walkhanazeera...

6145 Say "I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine...

6145 Qul la ajidu feema oohiya ilayya muharraman AAala taAAimin yatAAamuhu illa an yakoona maytatan aw daman masfoohan aw lahma khinzeerin...

16115 He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine...

16115 Innama harrama AAalaykumu almaytata waddama walahma alkhinzeeri...

Thank you for your comments. While I do see your point, and I do not understand Arabic grammar, your comments have generated more questions for me.

Ayats 2173, 53, 560, and 16115, as you say, begin with the definite article "al". My question is, why isn't this case with 6145? This appears to be a discrepancy.
Given that "al" is the definite article, why, then, are none of the ayats translated as "the" swine, but as "the" flesh of swine? Is this just a huge oversight on the part of the translators, or is there a particular reason for this? I mean just how hard would it be to simply say flesh of the swine instead of repeatedly saying the flesh of swine?
Does the article "al" have additional definitions which may apply to these ayats?
I forgot to ask you, would you please copy and paste the Arabic rule you are referring to. I want to show it to some people and get their feedback, thanks.
Lastly, and this is burning question for me . Ayat 55 states that the food of the People of the Book, The Jews and Christian, is halal for us. Now, while do agree that the Jews, Christians, and mankind in general, must obey Al-Quran, Allah, makes no mention that the the pig was haram for them. In ayat 6146, Allah, only forbade the Jews the category of animals with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep. Now, anyone reading Al-Quran and having no knowledge of the dietary laws of the Jews, would conclude a few things

A. once Al-Quran was revealed the Jews must obey it.

B. in regard to the Jews, according to Al-Quran, Allah, never forbade them to eat swine.

C. given that the food of the Jews is halal for us and vice versa , and Allah never prohibited the flesh of swine to Jews, how, then, can it be haram for us or them? Does Allah make arbitrary laws and/or behave capriciously i.e. 2173?

D. given that the ayat reads lahma al-khinzerin, the flesh/meat of the swine is haram, and you believe this to be the actual translation, then we are permitted to eat the products made from the pigs hooves, bones, and fat/lard , as these are not flesh/meats. Do you agree? If the meat is unclean, how can the fat ]shahama] not be as well?

E. with the advent of Al-Quran, the Jews are now being told that swine is haram for them. If the swine is haram, because it is unclean/rajisa, why, then, did Allah allow it to be eaten by all of the righteous people for all those ages before Al-Quran was revealed? Did it all of a sudden just become unclean from one day to the next?

Looking forward to your reply.

unknownuser

Peace Priest Bokmei,

You have my terms. I'm more than willing to answer your questions, but not before you, definitively, go on record as to exactly where you stand on these questions, as I asked you first. It will not take you more than a few minutes to answer my questions, so what is the problem? Your refusal to comply with such an easy task, can only mean that you do not really know what you are talking about.

The burden of proof remains with you. If you wish to continue to debate this topic and prove your claims, then you have my terms.

If you still persist in refusing to answer my questions then that is a proof that you cannot refute my arguments. Until you answer my questions and refute my points, this discussion is over. I will not make any further posts until you answer my questions.

Please respond to my questions and then I will get to yours. Looking forward to your answers.

Until then, Au Revoir.

unknownuser

PEACE, TANVEER,

No deal. And, no, the burden of proof is on you. It is you and the others, who claim that Allah says the flesh of swine is haram. You have to prove this. I am the skeptic and skeptics don't prove other peoples assertions, they do.

You have my terms.

Peace.

savage_carrot

Peace Tanveer,

Don't waste your time with PB. We asked him to respond to our posts repeatedly in the past, he did not comply...Yet we answered his questions in good faith consistently. There is no reason why we should humour his 'commands', when he doesn't care a whit about our requests. Let's discuss the points as they stand in the posts...I basically care about responding to points rather than 'talking' to him, when you do that, you are only stating the OBVIOUS anyway, time and time again.

He keeps talking about burden of proof when he doesn't realise that there are three kinds...the other two in case it escaped his knowledge

2)A evidentiary burden is an obligation that shifts between parties over the course of the hearing or trial. A party may submit evidence that the court will consider prima facie proof of some state of affairs. This creates a evidentiary burden upon the opposing party to present evidence to refute the presumption

3)A tactical burden is an obligation similar to an evidentiary burden. Presented with certain evidence, the Court has the discretion to infer a fact from it unless the opposing party can present evidence to the contrary.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

Adequate evidence can, however, shift the burden of proof to the other party.

This is why in any debate/argument between two opposing sides, you'd ideally want a fair/impartial mediator, who would see through unfair and dirty tactics.

savage_carrot

Peace someone,

Thank you for posting the grammatical info. It's quite helpful in eliminating options of what it can't be.

Thor

PB,

I'll take a shot at your true/false quiz. Some questions are specifically addressed to SC, but I'll answer as best as I can with my own opinions

53 Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked, and the strangled (animal) and that beaten to death, and that killed by a fall and that killed by being smitten with the horn, and that which wild beasts have eaten, except what you slaughter, and what is sacrificed on stones set up (for idols) and that you divide by the arrows; that is a transgression.

The animals restricted to eat in the above ayat, are they, by their created natures, haram to eat. Yes or no?

No. Stupid question. Its obvious that the opposing position is that the flesh of swine is haram by nature, while the other restriction refer to any animal in those conditions. When you already know this, why the moronic insistence on a Yes or No answer? That?s like asking if the US flag is Blue or Red.

They are only haram to eat when they enter into a particualr state/condition. Am I correct?

Another stupid question. See the explanation above. What is the point of this?

The pig, being a quarduped, and Allah made all quadrupeds halal to eat, to accept your position then, is to say that the lahma of the quadruped pig, by its very created nature, is haram.

Is this your position then that, the very created nature of the pigs flesh is unclean?

Can't speak for SC. Personally Yes. Per

If this is true, then, the flesh of the must have pig has always been, by its created nature unclean, and, if this is the case, why did Allah not make it HARAM for the Jews and ALL of those before them?

Was the pig or any part of it, before the revealing of Al-Quran, haram to eat?

Ok. Here is where I am confused. Are you schizophrenic or just plain hypocritical? Did you read my post? You know the one in which I quoted your post ? in which you stated that 6145 applies to all humanity including Jews?

The answer is Yes. Per

The only things forbidden to them, and only because of their transgressions and not because the animal was by nature unclean, are quadrupeds with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep.

Am I correct, yes or no.

No.

Explain to me where your Only came from. And please review my comment above regarding hypocricy and schizophrenia.

51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...

Does the above ayat, mention anything about any part of a quadruped not being allowed? Yes or no?

No.

The ayat says...quadrupeds and not quadruped. Am I correct?

Yes

As you said, and I just want to be certain of your position here, no quadruped, as an entirety, is haram for consumption? Is this your position?

Can't speak for SC. Personally Yes.

A. 51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...

B. SC Quadrupeds are lawful except that which is recited to you. Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions. The restrictions specify what is in particular prohibited.

Ayat 51 says nothing about "except" meaning restrictions on quadrupeds. Am I correct?

No. What part of "The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except ..." didn't you understand?.

You wrote "Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions".

Does ayat 51 say what is in the bold and italics?

No. Hey this kinda reminds me of your mysterious "only" from

You said "No, we know what ayat 51 means". If this is true, what are the disallowed quadrupeds? Do you know?

Yes. Refer to and

Allah, in ayat 560, makes no mention that khinzeerin, is being used as a similitude/figuratively. Am I correct?

Yes.

Your claiming that khinzeerin in ayat 560 is figurative, is simply your opinion. Am I correct?

Can't speak for SC. Personally I think 560 is literal.

Khanaza, has two distinct meanings pig and something which looks bad. Am I correct?

Yes. Assuming the one dictionary you quoted is accurate. But to borrow a phrase ... it's "simply your opinion" that the adjective is applicable ... actually given the usage of "Al" eliminates the possibility of it being an adjective ... I guess you can contest the one instance where it doesn't use "Al".

Do you know for a certainty that, swine, in ayat 53, can only mean pig flesh literally?

Yes. I am no more, and no less certain about my "simple opinion" as you are about your "simple opinion". Stupid question. Don?t try holding people to a standard that you can?t maintain for yourself ... this time just review hypocricy.

Did Allah make any quadruped, by its created nature unclean, hence, haram to eat?

Moronic question considering the one that follows.

Did Allah make any PART of a quadruped, by its created nature, unclean, hence, haram to eat? Yes or no.

Yes. Refer to {5003] and

When Allah made an entire category of animals haram and parts of others haram, was it because the animals by nature were unclean/unfit for human consumption or was it done to punish a people? Is this correct?

WTFO!!! I?d be fascinated if you would show me how to answer this one with a Yes or No

unknownuser

THOR,

Thank you for the reply. Now, I hope Tanveer and SC, will reply as well. Perhaps your response will encourage them. We'll see.

Btw, no need for the comments like these

Are you schizophrenic or just plain hypocritical?

Stupid question...

Moronic question?

This is a debate and I know people can get "edgy", however, there is no need for these types of comments. Fair enough? Good deal.

PB,

I'll take a shot at your true/false quiz. Some questions are specifically addressed to SC, but I'll answer as best as I can with my own opinions

53 Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked, and the strangled (animal) and that beaten to death, and that killed by a fall and that killed by being smitten with the horn, and that which wild beasts have eaten, except what you slaughter, and what is sacrificed on stones set up (for idols) and that you divide by the arrows; that is a transgression.

The animals restricted to eat in the above ayat, are they, by their created natures, haram to eat. Yes or no?

No. Stupid question. Its obvious that the opposing position is that the flesh of swine is haram by nature, while the other restriction refer to any animal in those conditions. When you already know this, why the moronic insistence on a Yes or No answer? That?s like asking if the US flag is Blue or Red.

They are only haram to eat when they enter into a particualr state/condition. Am I correct?

Another stupid question. See the explanation above. What is the point of this?

The pig, being a quarduped, and Allah made all quadrupeds halal to eat, to accept your position then, is to say that the lahma of the quadruped pig, by its very created nature, is haram.

Is this your position then that, the very created nature of the pigs flesh is unclean?

Can't speak for SC. Personally Yes. Per

If this is true, then, the flesh of the must have pig has always been, by its created nature unclean, and, if this is the case, why did Allah not make it HARAM for the Jews and ALL of those before them?

Was the pig or any part of it, before the revealing of Al-Quran, haram to eat?

Ok. Here is where I am confused. Are you schizophrenic or just plain hypocritical? Did you read my post? You know the one in which I quoted your post ? in which you stated that 6145 applies to all humanity including Jews?

The answer is Yes. Per

The only things forbidden to them, and only because of their transgressions and not because the animal was by nature unclean, are quadrupeds with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep.

Am I correct, yes or no.

No.

Explain to me where your Only came from. And please review my comment above regarding hypocricy and schizophrenia.

51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...

Does the above ayat, mention anything about any part of a quadruped not being allowed? Yes or no?

No.

The ayat says...quadrupeds and not quadruped. Am I correct?

Yes

As you said, and I just want to be certain of your position here, no quadruped, as an entirety, is haram for consumption? Is this your position?

Can't speak for SC. Personally Yes.

A. 51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...

B. SC Quadrupeds are lawful except that which is recited to you. Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions. The restrictions specify what is in particular prohibited.

Ayat 51 says nothing about "except" meaning restrictions on quadrupeds. Am I correct?

No. What part of "The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except ..." didn't you understand?.

You wrote "Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions".

Does ayat 51 say what is in the bold and italics?

No. Hey this kinda reminds me of your mysterious "only" from

You said "No, we know what ayat 51 means". If this is true, what are the disallowed quadrupeds? Do you know?

Yes. Refer to and

Allah, in ayat 560, makes no mention that khinzeerin, is being used as a similitude/figuratively. Am I correct?

Yes.

Your claiming that khinzeerin in ayat 560 is figurative, is simply your opinion. Am I correct?

Can't speak for SC. Personally I think 560 is literal.

Khanaza, has two distinct meanings pig and something which looks bad. Am I correct?

Yes. Assuming the one dictionary you quoted is accurate. But to borrow a phrase ... it's "simply your opinion" that the adjective is applicable ... actually given the usage of "Al" eliminates the possibility of it being an adjective ... I guess you can contest the one instance where it doesn't use "Al".

Do you know for a certainty that, swine, in ayat 53, can only mean pig flesh literally?

Yes. I am no more, and no less certain about my "simple opinion" as you are about your "simple opinion". Stupid question. Don?t try holding people to a standard that you can?t maintain for yourself ... this time just review hypocricy.

Did Allah make any quadruped, by its created nature unclean, hence, haram to eat?

Moronic question considering the one that follows.

Did Allah make any PART of a quadruped, by its created nature, unclean, hence, haram to eat? Yes or no.

Yes. Refer to {5003] and

When Allah made an entire category of animals haram and parts of others haram, was it because the animals by nature were unclean/unfit for human consumption or was it done to punish a people? Is this correct?

WTFO!!! I?d be fascinated if you would show me how to answer this one with a Yes or No

Thor

PB,

edgy? ... damn ... I was shooting for witty and blithe ...

regarding my comments ... i think they are very pertinent ... its called Calling a Spade a Spade ...

you must admit your flip-flopping on the logical argument of whether Jews are included in or not is ... worrisome ... if hypocricy or schizophrenia don't explain this ... what is the reason behind your change of stance? .... how does the mysterious "only" flit in and out of your arguments like a masked crusader? ...

And about the stupid questions ... if ever I ask you "Is the US flag Blue or Red?" ... please ... I beseech you ... tell me I'm being a moron ... I won't take it personally ... honest ...

So ... here we are again ... someone has actually taken the time to address your issues ...

here's a thought ... why don't you try it now? ... I hear thats what they do in a debate ...

but where to start? ... you've got pages of unanswered stuff from Tanveer and SC ....

if I may be so bold ... start with the logical argument on Jews ... I'm particularly fond of that ...

Eagerly awaiting your reply.

Best Regards,

Thor