Is Swine Hallal
-
SaLaM PB
Looooooooooooooooolllllllllllllllll you remind me of an experiance i had when i was in Abu Dhabi. So you are telling me, that all the arab translators, whose first language is arabic, who spent half their life studing the Quran, who spend time studying Aramaic and who have translated this word to be flesh of pig, YOU are telling me that they are wrong? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL HHAHAHAHHHAHAHHA OH MANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN. Let us see
Literal
But He forbade/prohibited on you animals whose death was caused by suffocation or strangulation/dead, and the blood, and the pig's/swine's meat/flesh, and what is praised/declared to whom the sacrifice was made with it to other than God, so who was forced, not transgressing/corrupting , and nor transgressing/violating , so no sin/crime on him, that God (is) forgiving , most merciful .Free-Minds
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.Rashad Khalifa
He only prohibits for you the eating of animals that die of themselves (without human interference), blood, the meat of pigs, and animals dedicated to other than GOD. If one is forced (to eat these), without being malicious or deliberate, he incurs no sin. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.Yusuf Ali
He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful.Shakir
He has only forbidden you what dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that over which any other (name) than (that of) Allah has been invoked; but whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring, nor exceeding the limit, no sin shall be upon him; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.Pickthal
He hath forbidden you only carrion, and blood, and swineflesh, and that which hath been immolated to (the name of) any other than Allah. But he who is driven by necessity, neither craving nor transgressing, it is no sin for him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.Arberry
These things only has He forbidden you carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, what has been hollowed to other than God. Yet who so is constrained, not desiring nor transgressing, no sin shall be on him; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.George Sale
Verily he hath forbidden you to eat that which dieth of is self, and blood, and swine's flesh, and that on which any other name but God's hath been invocated. But he who is forced by necessity, not lusting, nor returning to transgress, it shall be no crime in him if he eat of those things, for God is gracious and merciful.Hilali/Khan
He has forbidden you only the Maytatah (dead animals), and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that which is slaughtered as a scrifice for others than Allah (or has been slaughtered for idols, etc., on which Allahs Name has not been mentioned while slaughtering). But if one is forced by necessity without wilful disobedience nor transgressing due limits, then there is no sin on him. Truly, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.Malik
He has forbidden you to eat dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which any name other than Allah has been invoked; but if someone is compelled by absolute necessity, intending neither to sin nor to transgress, they shall incur no sin. Surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.Maulana Ali
He has forbidden you only what dies of itself, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that over which any other (name) than (that of) Allah has been invoked. Then whoever is driven by necessity, not desiring, nor exceeding the limit, no sin is upon him. Surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.QXP
He has forbidden you only carrion (any animal that dies by itself), and blood, and swine flesh, and anything --- (not just meat) --- that has been dedicated to any other than Allah (be it any person, an ancestor, a saint, an idol or a tomb (53)). But, he who is compelled out of necessity, neither craving nor indulging in excess, it is not a dragging violation for him. Behold, Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.Sarwar
God has forbidden you to eat that which has not been properly slaughtered, blood, pork, and the flesh of any animal which has not been consecrated with a mention of the Name of God. However, in an emergency, without the intention of transgression or repeating transgression, one will not be considered to have committed a sin. God is All-forgiving and All-merciful.You are telling us that they have ALL got it wrong? And YOU have it correct? What is your source of your translation?
-
PEACE, JAXAL,
Looooooooooooooooolllllllllllllllll you remind me of an experiance i had when i was in Abu Dhabi. So you are telling me, that all the arab translators, whose first language is arabic, who spent half their life studing the Quran, who spend time studying Aramaic and who have translated this word to be flesh of pig, YOU are telling me that they are wrong? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL HHAHAHAHHHAHAHHA OH MANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN. Let us see
It is obvious that you will not believe me, so, why don't you ask Growyourself, Layth, Zenje, Nabi, Idol, Wakas, Ayman, Idris and others, how many words they've discovered, translated by the Arabic experts, which have been mistranslated by these same experts. roll
-
PB,
You have the integrity of haggis.
Reply to MY last post, directed to YOUR last post to me, instead of running away.
In the thread Pork & Logic, it has been conclusively shown according to Qur'aanic context, arabic language, grammar, and logic, that lahma khinzeerin as used in 6145 means meat of pig.
Following is the link
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2074&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=150
I was not aware of this thread, however, I did a cursory examination of it, but found no mention of ayats 6146, 53 or 55 in relation to understanding khanzerin. These ayats are important in understanding the was is being mistranslated as swine. You and Tanveer, continue to translate "lahma khinzerin" to mean the flesh of swine, this is your error and why you continue to believe that I am not answering your question. There is no pig being mentioned in the above ayat, it is simply a mistranslation. The ayat is saying to avoid flesh which appears ill-seeming/khanzerin. Many homeless people, because they are driven by necessity, frequently eat khanzerin--ill-seeming flesh.
WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING 6145 ???
6145 Say "I do not find in what is inspired to me forbidden except that it be already dead, or blood, or the meat of pig, for it is foul; or what is corruptly dedicated to other than God." Whoever is forced without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.
6146 AND for the Jews We have forbidden all that have claws; and from the cattle and the sheep We forbade their fat except what is attached to the back, or entrails, or mixed with bone. That is a punishment for their rebellion, and We are truthful.
The "AND" at the beginning of 6146 shows that both 6145 and 6146 are connected and 6146 is a CONTINUATION of 6145. In 6145 Allah tells explicitly what things are haram for all mankind, including Jews, and in 6146 He tells us what things are ADDITIONALLY haram for Jews only.
If I'm understanding you and Tanveer correctly, it apears that you are you are claiming that, when ayat 6146 was revealed, it is stating that the Jews have other restrictions placed on them in addition to what is placed on mankind in general, am I correct? Well, if that is in fact yours and Tanveers's position, then, Allah, has given the Jews and mankind two different set of laws to follow right into the present day. How is that possible? Your position cannot be correct, because unless I'm mistaken, ayat 6146 isn't talking about the Jews in the present tense, but the PAST tense. If this weren't true, then, the following ayat makes absolutely no sense at all
350 And a verifier of that which is before me of the Taurat and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord therefore be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me.
Remember, ayat 6146 informs us of what Allah made haram for the Jews to eat, there simply is no questioning this fact. Now, ayat 350 informs us that, part of what Allah had made haram for the Jews to eat, Jesus was given the authority to make part of it halal. So, if ayat 6146 is in the present tense how could Jesus make lawful part of what was forbidden to the Jews? Ayat 6146 was revealed long after the death of Jesus...yes?
So, the question before us now is...is ayat 6146, regarding the Jews and prohibited food, referring to their past or to their present?
Looking forward to your reply. Don't get cold feet now and run off. lol
-
PB,
Once again, you disregard my post, fear not however, I shall bring it to your attention as many times as you disregard it.
I was not aware of this thread, however, I did a cursory examination of it, but found no mention of ayats 6146, 53 or 55 in relation to understanding khanzerin.
In your cursory examination, you probably have not noticed that the only way to ALLOW pig meat, is to change the meaning of (lahma) khinzeerin to whatever your heart desires. Not flawed roundabout arguments, but the word itself.
These ayats are important in understanding the was is being mistranslated as swine. You and Tanveer, continue to translate "lahma khinzerin" to mean the flesh of swine, this is your error and why you continue to believe that I am not answering your question. There is no pig being mentioned in the above ayat, it is simply a mistranslation. The ayat is saying to avoid flesh which appears ill-seeming/khanzerin. Many homeless people, because they are driven by necessity, frequently eat khanzerin--ill-seeming flesh.
YOU are the one saying lahma khinzeerin is NOT pig meat. So why should we change the meaning to understand the verses of the quran when they are just fine as they are, inclusive of the word lahma khinzeerin meaning pig meat. Our 'error' does not result in contradictions and redundancies and absurd illogical situations.
If it's a mistranslation then ONLY deal with the mistranslation of the word itself. Stop obfuscating the point with convoluted explanations of if this is this than that is that...because as we've seen in my previous post they don't hold any water.
Address the mistranslation point in my previous posts, or let me bring it home to you in summary
- Mistranslation
SC Khanazeer = pig , Lahma Khinzeerin = pig meat.
PB Khinzerin = ill seeming behaviour? , Lahma Khinzeerin = ill seeming meat
Metaphors are gauged by CONTEXT and NOT the LITERAL words used...if 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.
Khanazeer in your 'main entry' is itself comprised of 'bad' and 'see'...so Where is behaviour? You can either take "I see it bad" OR "proud" OR "stubborn", even "ill seeming" if you want. What you CAN'T do is put behaviour in the same word comprising of khinz + ara as well. Unless you are telling us it can be broken down into THREE parts, in which case i would ask you to provide your dictionary PROOF.
Please tell me which part of khanazeer in arabic is referring to behaviour ( as in the word in 560). We know what khinz is and what ara is, where is the word for behaviour in the same 'compound' word?
If I'm understanding you and Tanveer correctly, it apears that you are you are claiming that, when ayat 6146 was revealed, it is stating that the Jews have other restrictions placed on them in addition to what is placed on mankind in general, am I correct? Well, if that is in fact yours and Tanveers's position, then, Allah, has given the Jews and mankind two different set of laws to follow right into the present day. How is that possible?
No, cursory examination does not suit...when ayat 6146 WAS revealed God was telling us the additional restrictions as a punishment placed on them IN THE PAST, OR BEFORE REVELATION OF THE QURAN. It is telling us the truth of what took place in the PAST as you can see in the verse itself. If mankind believes in the quran, then the restrictions on the BELIEVERS apply ONLY. This makes mankind ONE after the revelation of the quran, IF they believe in it. So how do you have two different sets of laws to follow in the quran if you ONLY believe in the quran?
Remember, ayat 6146 informs us of what Allah made haram for the Jews to eat, there simply is no questioning this fact.
Again, you FORGET the verse before it and what it says in 6146 itself as PUNISHMENT meaning ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS. You CANNOT take one verse seperate from the quran and say this is it, these were the ONLY restrictions.
- Does 6146 tell us of the ONLY restrictions on the Jews?
Everything is lawful UNLESS forbidden
51 O you who believe, you shall fulfill your covenants. Permitted for you to eat are the livestock, except those specifically prohibited herein. You shall not permit hunting throughout Hajj pilgrimage. GOD decrees whatever He wills.
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;
- 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.
If one takes the latter two (55 and/or 2172) seperately from restrictions(exceptions) provided in al quran, then it implies NO restrictions.
If one keeps restrictions in mind provided by al quran, then ALL food is lawful UNLESS forbidden.
With this in mind, leave the MEANING of lahma khinzeerin ASIDE and address your so called 'logical' argument part that falls flat when lahma khinzeerin is mentioned as being FORBIDDEN in 6145 and 6146 tells us of ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS...not the ONLY restrictions as This was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion" details.
6145 Say, "I do not find in the revelations given to me any food that is prohibited for any eater except (1) carrion, (2) running blood, (3) the meat of pigs, for it is contaminated, and (4) the meat of animals blasphemously dedicated to other than GOD." If one is forced (to eat these), without being deliberate or malicious, then your Lord is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
6146 And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.
If one assumes that 6146 were the ONLY restrictions imposed on jews, what is the meaning of "This was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion"? Because that is what is telling us that it is ADDITIONAL. That is why those restrictions are DIFFERENT from 6145 and called PUNISHMENT. That logically concludes that 6146 is a COUNTINUATION of 6145 with ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS.
Additionally, if one believes that those were the ONLY restrictions on the jewish people then, they were allowed EVERYTHING except animals with claws, and the fat of cattle and sheep...this is far less than what we've been forbidden...according to this, we must be the ones who are being PUNISHED with ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS. How does it possibly make sense to get away with LESS and called being PUNISHED than those said NOT to be punished at ALL?
IF the restrictions on jews in 6146 were the ONLY restrictions then
Jews were restricted = a) animals with claws b) fat of sheep c) fat of oxen.
Believers are restricted = a) blood b) dead meat c) lahma khinzeerin d)that which is dedicated to other than God e) that which has been strangled f) that which has been beaten to death g) that which has fallen from a height h) that which has been gored i) that which the wild animals have eaten from except what you managed to rescue j) what has been slaughtered on alters k) what you divide by the arrows of chance.
(53) Thus the ONLY restrictions the jews had were 3 (which now is claimed to be even further reduced with NO ayat to back it up) and the believers have 11.
Hmmm...what did the ayat 6146 say? How does it possibly make sense to get away with LESS and called being PUNISHED than those said NOT to be punished at ALL?
The only conclusion that follows logically is that these were ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS and a COUNTINUATION of 6145.
Jesus was given the authority to make part of it halal.
Can you please post the ayat where jesus uses this authority and what he uses it on so you can stop conjecturing? Thanks!
-
Peace Priest Bokmei,
You still have not answered my questions directed to you, which is being discourteous, rude, and disrespectful. If you do not have the courtesy to answer my questions directed to you, time and again, how can you expect me to answer you ? I will repost my questions and once you answer them, I will be glad to comment
-
Given that 6145 lists food made haram for mankind, and that mankind includes Jews, Why do you keep ignoring what Allah EXPLICITLY makes forbidden for Jews in 6145 ?
-
The "AND" at the beginning of 6146 clearly shows that 6146 is a CONTINUATION of 6145, so you cannot isolate 6146 from 6145. Why do you keep ignoring the "AND" at the beginning of 6146 and keep isolating 6146 from 6145 ? Also as Nadia pointed out, the phrase "that is a punishment for their rebellion" in 6146 also clearly shows that 6146 is a CONTINUATION of 6145, because the restrictions in 6146 are IN ADDITION TO the restrictions in 6145 for Jews. Do you mean to say that the foods mentioned in 6146 are the ONLY foods made haram for Jews ? So before their punishment ALL food was halal to them ?
Why do you keep rejecting parts of the word of Allah (e.g. 6145) ?
1338 And those to whom We have previously given the Scripture rejoice at what has been sent down to you, but there are some of the groups that reject parts of it.
- Given that Allah, in 6146, does not forbid the Jews to eat dead meat, blood, lahma khinzeerin, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah", hence, according to your twisted logic it was lawful to them, and ayat 55 states that their food and our food are halal for each other, dead meat, blood, lahma khinzeerin, and "what is dedicated to other than Allah", then has to be halal for mankind. But then that would contradict 6145 where Allah has clearly made dead meat, blood, lahma khinzeerin and "what is dedicated to other than Allah" HARAM FOR MANKIND, WHICH INCLUDES JEWS. How will you explain that ?
Also, as EVERYONE has noticed, you have blatantly ignored Nadia's post and have completely eluded replying to her points, just like you have completely ignored my questions. So who is running ?
Looking forward to your replies.
-
-
PEACE, TANVEER,
WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING 6145 ???
6145 Say "I do not find in what is inspired to me forbidden except that it be already dead, or blood, or the meat of pig, for it is foul; or what is corruptly dedicated to other than God." Whoever is forced without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.
6146 AND for the Jews We have forbidden all that have claws; and from the cattle and the sheep We forbade their fat except what is attached to the back, or entrails, or mixed with bone. That is a punishment for their rebellion, and We are truthful.
The "AND" at the beginning of 6146 shows that both 6145 and 6146 are connected and 6146 is a CONTINUATION of 6145. In 6145 Allah tells explicitly what things are haram for all mankind, including Jews, and in 6146 He tells us what things are ADDITIONALLY haram for Jews only.
Tanveer, you and SC, ducked the following VERY important information...why?
If I'm understanding you and SC, correctly, it apears that you are you are claiming that, when ayat 6146 was revealed, it is stating that the Jews have other restrictions placed on them in addition to what is placed on mankind in general, am I correct? Well, if that is in fact yours and SC's position, then, Allah, has given the Jews and mankind two different set of laws to follow right into the present day. How is that possible? Your position cannot be correct, because unless I'm mistaken, ayat 6146 isn't talking about the Jews in the present tense, but the PAST tense. If this weren't true, then, the following ayat makes absolutely no sense at all
350 And a verifier of that which is before me of the Taurat and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord therefore be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me.
Remember, ayat 6146 informs us of what Allah made haram for the Jews to eat, there simply is no questioning this fact. Now, ayat 350 informs us that, part of what Allah had made haram for the Jews to eat, Jesus was given the authority to make part of it halal. So, if ayat 6146 is in the present tense how could Jesus make lawful part of what was forbidden to the Jews? Ayat 6146 was revealed long after the death of Jesus...yes?
So, the question before us now is...is ayat 6146, regarding the Jews and prohibited food, referring to their past or to their present? The tense of ayat 646, is very important to determine, so, is it referring to the past or the present?
Also, as EVERYONE has noticed, you have blatantly ignored Nadia's post and have completely eluded replying to her points, just like you have completely ignored my questions. So who is running ?
Nadia...has made no point yet. I continue to hope though. I'm not running, I'm right here.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
SC,
The only conclusion that follows logically is that these were ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS and a COUNTINUATION of 6145.
55 This day (all) the good things are allowed to you; and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them...
6145 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-- or that which is a transgression, other than (the name of) Allah having been invoked on it; but whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring nor exceeding the limit, then surely your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.
6146 And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.
-
Let's say, for argument sake that, ayat 6146 is a continuation of ayat 6145. Now, the only animals named in ayat 6146 are the category of animals with claws, oxen, and sheep. There is no controversy regarding the animals mentioned in ayat 6146.
-
Now, the only category of animals made haram for Jews, which are definitively recorded in Al-Quran, are animals with claws.
-
If the pig, was in a fact an animal made haram for Jews, a People of the Book, then it would have had to have claws per ayat 6146.
-
Now, given that pigs don't have claws, it could not have possibly come under the category of prohibited animals of the Jews, hence, it was halal for them.
-
Now, given that pigs weren't prohibited to the Jews, per ayat 6146 , 55 makes perfect sense, hence, their food and out food are halal for each other.
-
Given point 5, khinzerin, in ayat 6145 cannot mean pig either, otherwise, it would contradict 55 and 6146.
-
Ayat 6146 is not a continuation of ayat 645, relative to, the prohibited foods to the Jews. Allah, never says to the Jews..." I now make pigs, in addition to animals with claws and the fat of of oxen and sheep, haram for you".
-
The question that now comes to mind is...was pig haram for Noah, Abraham, Lot, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, and their respective peoples? If not, did Allah simply allow them to eat foul meat, only to later make it haram? Moses and Aaron were righteous men, were they also forbidden to eat pig? If it was haram for the aforemention people, where does Allah state this in Al-Quran and, what makes it haram for later people and not the former, and when does this occur?
Tanveer, feel free to chime in...she's going to need your assistance here.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
-
SaLaM PB
It is obvious that you will not believe me, so, why don't you ask Growyourself, Layth, Zenje, Nabi, Idol, Wakas, Ayman, Idris and others, how many words they've discovered, translated by the Arabic experts, which have been mistranslated by these same experts. Rolling Eyes
Why dont you let ME be the judge of that. The only thing you can say which i wont believe is , if you say that it came to you in a dream or you were sitting on a bench reading the morning newspaper and suddenly you had an epiphiny Loooooooolllll. Other than that, i will belive pretty much what you say. So , what is the source of your translation?
-
Peace,
Lets not needlessly complicate and obusfucate a VERY simple concept and the clear verses of the quran. Let's cut to the chase.
Everything is lawful UNLESS forbidden
51 O you who believe, you shall fulfill your covenants. Permitted for you to eat are the livestock, except those specifically prohibited herein. You shall not permit hunting throughout Hajj pilgrimage. GOD decrees whatever He wills.
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;
- 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.
If one takes the latter two seperately from restrictions(exceptions) provided in al quran, then it implies NO restrictions.
If one keeps restrictions in mind provided by al quran, then ALL food is lawful UNLESS forbidden.
But 55 says "the good things have been made lawful to you" and 2172 says "eat of the good things". If "ALL food is lawful", then why does 55 and 2172 mention "good things"?
Anwar Azim
-
PEACE, JAXAL,
So, what is the source of your translation?
Al-Quran and The Dictionary of the Holy Quran, by Omar Abdul Mannan.
-
SaLaM PB
Fair enough. Can i ask you for a favour? i was trying to find a link to his dictonary online. IF you have it, can you please give it to me?
Now, if you believe that khanzeeren translate into unclean, rotten or whatever it is u twist it out to be, can you back this up using any other verse which uses the word khanzeeren to show uncleanliness, rotten or whatever you think it?
-
Peace Anwar,
But 55 says "the good things have been made lawful to you" and 2172 says "eat of the good things". If "ALL food is lawful", then why does 55 and 2172 mention "good things"?
Good and bad is relative UNLESS specified with a standard...Or in another way...what is forbidden is specified to you, make up your mind to the rest.
-
PB,
- Let's say, for argument sake that, ayat 6146 is a continuation of ayat 6145. Now, the only animals named in ayat 6146 are the category of animals with claws, oxen, and sheep. There is no controversy regarding the animals mentioned in ayat 6146.
6146 is a countinuation of the previous with the logical connector AND, it mentions additional restrictions. Thus taking it all together you would have lahma khinzeerin as part of it.
- Now, the only category of animals made haram for Jews, which are definitively recorded in Al-Quran, are animals with claws.
As above, it's a countinuation...and whatever was made haram/halal for the jews not should NOT be a cause of concern for the believer who already has the RESTRICTIONS/EXCEPTIONS detailed to him in the quran.
- If the pig, was in a fact an animal made haram for Jews, a People of the Book, then it would have had to have claws per ayat 6146.
6146 tells us of additional restrictions for their punishment as detailed in my posts so many times. NOT the only ones. Conclusion based on false premise of ONLY restrictions.
- Now, given that pigs don't have claws, it could not have possibly come under the category of prohibited animals of the Jews, hence, it was halal for them.
Conclusion based on false premise of ONLY restrictions.
- Given point 5, khinzerin, in ayat 6145 cannot mean pig either, otherwise, it would contradict 55 and 6146.
Conclusion based on false premise of ONLY restrictions.
- Ayat 6146 is not a continuation of ayat 645, relative to, the prohibited foods to the Jews. Allah, never says to the Jews..." I now make pigs, in addition to animals with claws and the fat of of oxen and sheep, haram for you".
You have based an entire progression of conclusions on a false premise even though you say "Let's say, for argument sake that, ayat 6146 is a continuation of ayat 6145"...Well done!
- The question that now comes to mind is...was pig haram for Noah, Abraham, Lot, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, and their respective peoples? If not, did Allah simply allow them to eat foul meat, only to later make it haram? Moses and Aaron were righteous men, were they also forbidden to eat pig? If it was haram for the aforemention people, where does Allah state this in Al-Quran and, what makes it haram for later people and not the former, and when does this occur?
The question that now comes to mind is will you read my post the next time you respond? Time and time again it's written, these restrictions are for the believers in the quran, only the jewish people are mentioned in al quran as having additional restrictions as a PUNISHMENT. So why do you want to CONJECTURE about Noah etc.
You keep running away from our questions and keep coming back with the same assertions...it's called pushing an agenda and turning a blind eye to everything else. Look, if you want to eat pork, eat it...stop justifying it as a result of your guilt trip and do respond to my previous posts, the ones you ran from...Thank you!
-
Peace all,
Be it known that it has become blatantly obvious that PB has failed to come up with a reasonable answer to a SINGLE question posed by me or Nadia, time and again, and that he has eluded and/or completely failed to respond to the various points raised in our posts, thereby conclusively proving that he has no argument to support the lies/conjectures he is inventing and ascribing to Allah, and rejecting Allah's clear ayaat, based on his twisted, faulty and flawed logic.
He has persistently CONJECTURED as to what the meaning of "lahma khinzeerin" is, going against Qur'aanic context, logic, Arabic language and Arabic grammar, persistently rejected 6145 that clearly makes "lahma khinzeerin" haram for mankind and Jews (mankind includes Jews), and has persistently excluded Jews from mankind. He has also persistently CONJECTURED as to what exactly Jesus made lawful to Jews in 350.
Unless he answers our posts, and refrains from conjecturing, his case is closed.
-
Peace Tanveer,
I agree, the thing is if one is saying khanazeer is not pig, then explain what is wrong with pig first. Try to see why it doesn't work. If everything works out with no contradiction, then there is no need to think it must be something else. The way this whole thread has gone, it's like... I think khanazeer is this ad nauseum, and ignoring the fact that it works fine as pig. agenda
Let us summarize PB's argument
-
6146 does not say jews were forbidden pig and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
-
In 55 what's good for the jews is good for us and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
-
Therefore we can eat pig and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
To which I replied
- 6146 also does not say those were the ONLY restrictions, but it doesn't matter, because exceptions/restrictions on the believers apply regardless of what the jews are allowed or not allowed. Lahma khinzeerin is the meat of pig.
1a) According to the above 'logic', IF jews were not forbidden pig, they were not forbidden the 11 restrictions/haram (on food) that applies to us too. Does it mean it's okay to eat the 11 haram items in normal times?
-
As seen by the logical continuation of my point number 1, what's good for the people of the book is good for us UNLESS otherwise specified. It's like taking one verse from the quran and saying, thats it. If you just take 2172 it's the same thing as 55 as you won't see the restrictions and it will mean NO restrictions for the believers. The reason why 55 says people of the book, is that people don't start thinking their food is haram because they don't believe in the quran. It doesn't mean you IGNORE the restrictions already placed on the believers in numerous verses. Lahma khinzeerin is the meat of pig.
-
No we can't eat something we have been restricted from, none of the 11 unless forced by necessity etc. If lahma khinzeerin is not pig, (it's pig meat btw lol ) STOP with the convoluted arguments and address the issue of the word NOT meaning pig OR pig meat. Simple.
-
-
PEACE, JAXAL,
SaLaM PB
Fair enough. Can i ask you for a favour? i was trying to find a link to his dictonary online. IF you have it, can you please give it to me?
Now, if you believe that khanzeeren translate into unclean, rotten or whatever it is u twist it out to be, can you back this up using any other verse which uses the word khanzeeren to show uncleanliness, rotten or whatever you think it?
I've already done this. I've given you the Arabic definition for khanaza, as well as, the ayat where it mentions certain people becoming apes and swine. The Arabic word for swine there is khanzeerin. Their conduct was ill-seeming/unclean; nothing to do with them actually shape-shifting into the animal pig.
-
SaLaM PB
Do u have the online link for the Abdul Manan Dictonary?
According to my dictonary, the arabic word for pig is Khanzeeren. PLUS the fact that i speak arabic. Even leaving that aside. Im just not seeing your point. Are u looking at the correct verse? Here is the verse
Innama harrama AAalaykumu almaytata waalddama walahma alkhinzeeri wama ohilla bihi lighayri Allahi famani idturra ghayra baghin wala AAadin fala ithma AAalayhi inna Allaha ghafoorun raheemun
Qul hal onabbi-okum bisharrin min thalika mathoobatan AAinda Allahi man laAAanahu Allahu waghadiba AAalayhi wajaAAala minhumu alqiradata waalkhanazeera waAAabada alttaghooti ola-ika sharrun makanan waadallu AAan sawa-i alssabeeli
Its says pig. Where is it saying uncleanl? Infact, do you even know the word for unclean? Use the verse ive given you, and bold out the word for unclean.
-
SC,
PBM 1. Let's say, for argument sake that, ayat 6146 is a continuation of ayat 6145. Now, the only animals named in ayat 6146 are the category of animals with claws, oxen, and sheep. There is no controversy regarding the animals mentioned in ayat 6146.
6146 is a countinuation of the previous with the logical connector AND, it mentions additional restrictions. Thus taking it all together you would have lahma khinzeerin as part of it.
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed? Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them long before the coming of Al-quran, hence, ayat 6146 cannot be an additional punishment for them after the coming of Al-Quran, because by the time ayat 6145-6 were revealed, they already declared the pig haram to eat. According to your's and Tanveer's logic, the Jews were given an additional punishment of not eating pig, yet, long before ayats 6145-6 were revealed, they had long declared pig haram to themselves and were not eating it. What is your chronology for you conjectures? Do you see your error now?
As above, it's a countinuation...and whatever was made haram/halal for the jews not should NOT be a cause of concern for the believer who already has the RESTRICTIONS/EXCEPTIONS detailed to him in the quran.
"Should not", is a purely speculative/conjectural phrase. Let's remain definitive,shall we? Thus, we can thus throw that phrase out. If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed? Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them long before the coming of Al-quran, hence, ayat 6146 cannot be an additional punishment for them after the coming of Al-Quran, because by the time ayat 6145-6 were revealed, they already declared the pig haram to eat. According to your's and Tanveer's logic, the Jews were given an additional punishment of not eating pig, yet, long before ayats 6145-6 were revealed, they had long declared pig haram to themselves and were not eating it. What is your chronology for you conjectures? Do you see your error now?
PBM 3. If the pig, was in a fact an animal made haram for Jews, a People of the Book, then it would have had to have claws per ayat 6146.
6146 tells us of additional restrictions for their punishment as detailed in my posts so many times. NOT the only ones. Conclusion based on false premise of ONLY restrictions.
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed? Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them long before the coming of Al-quran, hence, ayat 6146 cannot be an additional punishment for them after the coming of Al-Quran, because by the time ayat 6145-6 were revealed, they already declared the pig haram to eat. According to your's and Tanveer's logic, the Jews were given an additional punishment of not eating pig, yet, long before ayats 6145-6 were revealed, they had long declared pig haram to themselves and were not eating it. What is your chronology for you conjectures? Do you see your error now?
PBM 4. Now, given that pigs don't have claws, it could not have possibly come under the category of prohibited animals of the Jews, hence, it was halal for them.
Conclusion based on false premise of ONLY restrictions.
LOL! What false premise? I'm offering Allah's Words and you are offering conjecture/speculation. Now, either pigs have claws or they don't!If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed? Did pig become haram for Jews before or after 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them long before the coming of Al-Quran, hence, ayat 6146 cannot be an additional punishment for them after the coming of Al-Quran, because by the time ayat 6145-6 were revealed, they already declared the pig haram to eat. What is your chronology for this event? Do you see your error now
PBM 6. Given point 5, khinzerin, in ayat 6145 cannot mean pig either, otherwise, it would contradict 55 and 6146.
Conclusion based on false premise of ONLY restrictions.
350 "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
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.
What, exactly, is the false premise? Neither you nor Tanveer have shown, via Al-Quran, where Allah prohibited the Jews from eating pig. You claim that it was an additional punishment, however, for this to be an additional punishment, pig, prior to the advent of the Jews, would have had to have already been haram for mankind. Where, in Al-Quran, does Allah prohibited mankind from eating swine prior to ayats 6145? By the time ayat 6145 comes into existence, the Jews, had already delcared that swine was haram for themselves according to the Law of Moses, hence, where is the additional punishment? If your "premises and conclusions" are to be accepted, you must prove, via Al-Quran that, mankind, in fact, was prohibited from eating swine PRIOR to ayats 6145-6 being revealed, then and only then, might you have a case for the "additional punishment" conjecture. If you conclude that mankind was only prohibited from eating pig after the revealing of ayats 6145-6, and it is an additional punishment for the Jews, then, prior to the ayats 6145, pig, was not haram for mankind. If you cannot do this, then, your conjectures, contradicts ayats 55 and 350.
PBM 7. Ayat 6146 is not a continuation of ayat 645, relative to, the prohibited foods to the Jews. Allah, never says to the Jews..." I now make pigs, in addition to animals with claws and the fat of of oxen and sheep, haram for you".
You have based an entire progression of conclusions on a false premise even though you say "Let's say, for argument sake that, ayat 6146 is a continuation of ayat 6145"...Well done!
A meaningless non-answer.
PBM 8. The question that now comes to mind is...was pig haram for Noah, Abraham, Lot, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, and their respective peoples? If not, did Allah simply allow them to eat foul meat, only to later make it haram? Moses and Aaron were righteous men, were they also forbidden to eat pig? If it was haram for the aforemention people, where does Allah state this in Al-Quran and, what makes it haram for later people and not the former, and when does this occur?
The question that now comes to mind is will you read my post the next time you respond? Time and time again it's written, these restrictions are for the believers in the quran, only the jewish people are mentioned in al quran as having additional restrictions as a PUNISHMENT. So why do you want to CONJECTURE about Noah etc.
You did not answer the above question and, until you do so, you cannot transform your conjectures into Quranic fact. Please answer the above question with facts, no ducking, thanks.
You keep running away from our questions and keep coming back with the same assertions...it's called pushing an agenda and turning a blind eye to everything else. Look, if you want to eat pork, eat it...stop justifying it as a result of your guilt trip and do respond to my previous posts, the ones you ran from...Thank you!
You're falling more and more into conjectural rants, please stay focused.
Looking toward your reply.
-
PEACE, TANVEER,
He has also persistently CONJECTURED as to what exactly Jesus made lawful to Jews in 350.
6146 And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.
All Allah SAYS is...Jesus, was given the authority to make part of what was haram to the Jews, halal. Ayat 6146 tells the logical, exactly, what was made haram to the Jews. Now, what part of that did he make halal, well, Allah does not say only that a part was made halal. A question, do pigs have wings and claws? lol
quote]Unless he answers our posts, and refrains from conjecturing, his case is closed.
LOL!! Come on don't cut and run now, dude. I know you and SC are beginning to see the untenableness of your assertions. You and SC, have not addressed the following points, please do
If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and SC claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed? Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them long before the coming of Al-quran, hence, ayat 6146 cannot be an additional punishment for them after the coming of Al-Quran, because by the time ayat 6145-6 were revealed, they already declared the pig haram to eat. According to your's and Tanveer's logic, the Jews were given an additional punishment of not eating pig, yet, long before ayats 6145-6 were revealed, they had long declared pig haram to themselves and were not eating it. What is your chronology for you conjectures? Do you see your error now?
"Should not", is a purely speculative/conjectural phrase. Let's remain definitive,shall we? Thus, we can thus throw that phrase out. If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed? Did pig become haram for Jews before or after the 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them long before the coming of Al-quran, hence, ayat 6146 cannot be an additional punishment for them after the coming of Al-Quran, because by the time ayat 6145-6 were revealed, they already declared the pig haram to eat. According to your's and Tanveer's logic, the Jews were given an additional punishment of not eating pig, yet, long before ayats 6145-6 were revealed, they had long declared pig haram to themselves and were not eating it. What is your chronology for you conjectures? Do you see your error now?
I'm offering Allah's Words and you are offering conjecture/speculation. Now, either pigs have claws or they don't!If ayat 6146 is an addition of ayat 6145, as you and Tanveer claim it is, and khanzeerin means pig, did pig become haram for mankind before or after ayat 6145-6 were revealed? Did pig become haram for Jews before or after 6145-6 were revealed? Remember now, the Jews had declared that pig was haram for them long before the coming of Al-Quran, hence, ayat 6146 cannot be an additional punishment for them after the coming of Al-Quran, because by the time ayat 6145-6 were revealed, they already declared the pig haram to eat. What is your chronology for this event? Do you see your error now
350 "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
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.
What, exactly, is the false premise? Neither you nor SC have shown, via Al-Quran, where Allah prohibited the Jews from eating pig. You claim that it was an additional punishment, however, for this to be an additional punishment, pig, prior to the advent of the Jews, would have had to have already been haram for mankind. Where, in Al-Quran, does Allah prohibited mankind from eating swine prior to ayats 6145? By the time ayat 6145 comes into existence, the Jews, had already delcared that swine was haram for themselves according to the Law of Moses, hence, where is the additional punishment? If your "premises and conclusions" are to be accepted, you must prove, via Al-Quran that, mankind, in fact, was prohibited from eating swine PRIOR to ayats 6145-6 being revealed, then and only then, might you have a case for the "additional punishment" conjecture. If you conclude that mankind was only prohibited from eating pig after the revealing of ayats 6145-6, and it is an additional punishment for the Jews, then, prior to the ayats 6145, pig, was not haram for mankind. If you cannot do this, then, your conjectures, contradicts ayats 55 and 350.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
PB,
You actually sat and wrote all that? You are not here to discuss but to enforce your view. I will keep repeating till you answer (thats what I always end up doing) this time it's even more condensed...try to keep your points condensed instead of rambling all over the place k?
Let us summarize PB's argument
-
6146 does not say jews were forbidden pig and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
-
In 55 what's good for the jews is good for us and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
-
Therefore we can eat pig and btw, lahma khinzeerin is not pig.
To which I replied
- 6146 also does not say those were the ONLY restrictions, but it doesn't matter, because exceptions/restrictions on the believers apply regardless of what the jews are allowed or not allowed. Lahma khinzeerin is the meat of pig.
1a) According to the above 'logic', IF jews were not forbidden pig, they were not forbidden the 11 restrictions/haram (on food) that applies to us too. Does it mean it's okay to eat the 11 haram items in normal times?
-
As seen by the logical continuation of my point number 1, what's good for the people of the book is good for us UNLESS otherwise specified. It's like taking one verse from the quran and saying, thats it. If you just take 2172 it's the same thing as 55 as you won't see the restrictions and it will mean NO restrictions for the believers. The reason why 55 says people of the book, is that people don't start thinking their food is haram because they don't believe in the quran. It doesn't mean you IGNORE the restrictions already placed on the believers in numerous verses. Lahma khinzeerin is the meat of pig.
-
No we can't eat something we have been restricted from, none of the 11 unless forced by necessity etc. If lahma khinzeerin is not pig, (it's pig meat btw ) STOP with the convoluted arguments and address the issue of the word NOT meaning pig OR pig meat. Simple.
-