CONCLUSION OF THE SWINE DEBATE
-
I know what I'm doing, however, you, as evidenced by your latest screw-up, are clueless as to what you are doing rotfl
If we've met on other boards, well, you were just as foolish and I crushed you there as well...mate lol
True motives being written freely and without inhibition.
Keep exposing yourself.
The LOLs and ROTFLs are pretty lame really. Grow up.
-
"AhmedBahgat"]
the answer is A lol
Well, genius, if A. is the answer, then why do you continue to take the Torah over Al-Quran? Allah says in Al-Quran that...He made clawed species of animals haram to the Jews, well, pigs don't have claws, thus, Al-Quran, is refuting the tampered Torah as to exactly what species of animals Allah made to the Jews--not animals with hooves, but animals with claws. Btw, thufr cannot mean nail, because Jews eat beef/cows which, according to your "definition nd logic", have nails as do pigs. So, if pigs and cows both have nails, then the cow was also hara to the Jews...are you really gong to stand by your silly and un-Quranic position that, thufr, in ayat 6146, means nail? rotfl
Are you getting this yet?...mate wink
-
... why ... take the Torah over Al-Quran? Allah says in Al-Quran that...He made clawed species of animals haram to the Jews, well, pigs don't have claws, thus, Al-Quran, is refuting the tampered Torah as to exactly what species of animals Allah made to the Jews
Another gem from DULL_IQ...
The ancient Jews' were wrong to accept their Torah over the Quran which came thousands of years later.
Maybe they needed a time machine or someone like DULL... in their midst screaming "Guys, guys... ignore the Torah! You can eat pigs! Trust me they're good! They don't have claws!"
-
... why ... take the Torah over Al-Quran? Allah says in Al-Quran that...He made clawed species of animals haram to the Jews, well, pigs don't have claws, thus, Al-Quran, is refuting the tampered Torah as to exactly what species of animals Allah made to the Jews
Another gem from DULL_IQ...
The ancient Jews' were wrong to accept their Torah over the Quran which came thousands of years later.
Maybe they needed a time machine or someone like DULL... in their midst screaming "Guys, guys... ignore the Torah! You can eat pigs! Trust me they're good! They don't have claws!"
My God, you don't even know what time period is being discussed shock
truth, give yourself a rest lol
-
... why ... take the Torah over Al-Quran? Allah says in Al-Quran that...He made clawed species of animals haram to the Jews, well, pigs don't have claws, thus, Al-Quran, is refuting the tampered Torah as to exactly what species of animals Allah made to the Jews
"Guys, guys... ignore the Torah! You can eat pigs! Trust me they're good! They don't have claws!"
... you ... know what ... is being discussed
Yes I do.
-
... why ... take the Torah over Al-Quran? Allah says in Al-Quran that...He made clawed species of animals haram to the Jews, well, pigs don't have claws, thus, Al-Quran, is refuting the tampered Torah as to exactly what species of animals Allah made to the Jews
"Guys, guys... ignore the Torah! You can eat pigs! Trust me they're good! They don't have claws!"
... you ... know what ... is being discussed
Yes I do.
You have some very deep seated problems.
-
Salam ,
Ahmad Bahgat and the same verse tell us that Allah allowed them to eat The fat of the ox and the sheep (Fat Only) (because these aninals also have nails and) so Allah explained to them what they can eat from a couple of animals with NAILS (OX and sheep), they could also been eaten fish because the fish do not have nails
IDMKHIZIRKhi- Im sorry to say but you got this the other way around. GOD FORBADE THE FAT of the oxen and sheep NOT THEIR MEAT so this wont be a valid argument. GOD Bless!
I'm glad you pointed this out to him, he wouldn't have believed me. With that said, do you agree with him that thufr, in ayat 6146,--means nails?
-
You have some very deep seated problems
You probably never thought you'd see the day you were so thoroughly subdued and "crushed", that you'd be reduced to writing a single meaningless sentence such as that one.
I hope you've learnt your lesson.
I am compelled to post to you once more shaitan but after this, I will not go back on my word. But this if for the record. You, crush and subdue me?! and teach me a lesson? LOLx10!! You must be drunk. Anyway, there is only one reason why I'm putting you and and the other..."genius" on permanent ignore, is because I gave Layth my word that I would not revert back to the old Dhulqarnain, who would have taken great pleasure in cutting deep into you so that you would never forget your place again. Tonight, I came very close to saying things to you for which I would have certainly gotten banned for and I am not going to let that happen over you two shaitans. However, as I said, I gave Layth my word and I will keep it. This site is real learning environment and I will not want to get banned again wink.
Oh, btw, shaitan, you and the other "genuis" lost the khinzeer debate, but may Allah never allow you to recognize that fact or your other superstitions. May you live long and never change your beliefs.
...there will be no more from me to you.
You knew you'd fail didn't you. Everyone knew. Old habits are hard to break. It's nice that you're training yourself to be cool though. You've admitted frankly that you have a great deal of pent up anger in you and we suspected as much.
While your post is very hateful towards me, know that I have no hate for you and I do not share your spiteful words. I hope that you can overcome the troubles you have made a frank admission for. Bottling them up like you say you've done is one solution but an anger management class is probably a better option in the long run.
I commend you for admitting to your problem with me and the deep resentment you feel, and for accepting your status as a loser.
Peace/
-
Salam PBM,
Not only is ayat 6146 about specif things made haram, but the specific species of animal made haram by Allah, are only those with claws (why do you continue to ignore this fact?!), which, of course, excludes the animal pig. Is this not correct, yes or no?
Khi- Show me the word "ONLY" in 6146. GOD Bless!
The word "only" is self-evident. When Allah made animals with claws haram, what, do you think He made some animals with claws halal at the same time or some that He some other species of animal, in their entirety, haram? If so, then post that species. If you can't, then your question is not relevent. You still haven't answered my question
Not only is ayat 6146 about specific things made haram to the Jews, but the specific species of animal made haram by Allah, are only those with claws (why do you continue to ignore this fact?!), which, of course, excludes the animal pig. Is this not correct, yes or no?
Looking to your reply.
-
DO PIGS HAVE CLAWS...yes or no?
Maybe they have...
The accessory, or dew, claws have short conical horn capsules. Those of the pig are quite well developed.
http//137.222.110.150/calnet/Lfoot/page3.htmMaybe?! Well, don't you KNOW? If you are claiming that pig is haram, then you must be certain of your facts. The article you posted begins with the following
Anatomy of the Ox, Sheep, Goat and Pig's Foot
The article, relative the hoof being referred to as a...claw, means that, the hoof of these animals consist of two "dew claws", however, this notwithstanding, the aforementioned animals are said to have hooves not claws. Once again, if these animals truly had claws, then the sheep, goat, and ox, in their entirety, as well as the following, would have been haram to the Jews the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope and the mountain sheep. Jews both before and after Al-Quran and the Torah, ate these animals. Thus, thufr, in ayat 6146, cannot mean "dew claw"/hoof, likewise, khinzeer, cannot mean the specie of animal pig, otherwise, the goat, ox, and sheep would have had to have been haram before Al-Quran and still be haram today, if thufr means\t "dew claw"/hoof and not simply claw. Is this not correct?
-
Salam PBM
The word "only" is self-evident. When Allah made animals with claws haram, what, do you think He made some animals with claws halal at the same time or some that He some other species of animal, in their entirety, haram? If so, then post that species. If you can't, then your question is not relevent. You still haven't answered my question
Not only is ayat 6146 about specific things made haram to the Jews, but the specific species of animal made haram by Allah, are only those with claws (why do you continue to ignore this fact?!), which, of course, excludes the animal pig. Is this not correct, yes or no?
Looking to your reply.
Khi- This is not a fact at all. Your completely wrong. The 'only' you conclude from 6146 is PURE CONJECTURE. Others may conclude from 6146 that those animal prohibitons are ONLY those made haram to the Jews BECAUSE OF THEIR TRANGRESSIONS while this does not obviously exclude other animals being made haram to them and those would be the universal prohibitions in 6145. In short 6146 is AN ADDITIONAL , NOT A COMPLETE, SET OF ANIMAL PROHINTIONS TO THE JEWS "DUE TO THEIR TRANSGRESSION". This last phrase makes it evident. GOD Bless!
-
Not only is ayat 6146 about specif things made haram, but the specific species of animal made haram by Allah, are only those with claws (why do you continue to ignore this fact?!), which, of course, excludes the animal pig. Is this not correct, yes or no?
No.
And as I have already said you, the quran is to be taken as a whole, all its verses are complementing each other.
You should consider the whole quran, an not take a single verse apart and try to conform the rest of the quran to it.
As an example, you could take , and say the punishment for zina is 100 stripes, and there is no exception.
But, in other verses, you will find exceptions, like in and .
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1947&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75#43917Here, you are trying to conform your understanding of the meaning of into ... But this is not the right way to interpret the quran.
Secondly, as idmkhizar has said, the "only" is not self-evident.
As an example, If I say to my sons "Forbidden to you are pornographic movies", this does not imply that they can watch all other movies.
To mean that, I would have to say "Only Forbidden to you are pornigraphic movies".This logical fallacy is called "Denying the antecedent"
cf http//www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Denying_the_antecedentHere is the mistake you are making
If P, then Q.
P is false.
Therefore, Q is false.
http//www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Denying_the_antecedentWith P = "An animal have claws".
And Q = "It is forbidden to the jews".It gives
If "An animal have claws" , then "It is forbidden to the jews" .
"An animal have claws" is false. (in our example a pig)
Therefore, "It is forbidden to the jews is false" . (in our example the pig is not forbidden)This form of argument may be convincing because of confusion between the meanings of if and if and only if . Denying the antecedent is valid if the first premise asserts "if and only if" rather than "if".
http//www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Denying_the_antecedentHope your logical fallacy has been clearly exposed.
Please reflect on it, and try to be logic.
My request is...provide an exhaustive list of other species of animals made haram to the Jews. You cannot claim that the pig was ever haram to the Jews, because as a specie of animal, it is among the species of animals that don't have claws. Thus, Allah, could not have made the pig haram, because as with the sheep and ox ( remember, the sheep and oxen were not haram...just their fat), it too, as a specie animal, has.... hooves and not claws (sheep, goats, oxen, cows, pigs etc. do not have claws and that is why their sepcies were not haram to the Jews. Is this correct, yes or no.
Shahm/fat, although made haram to the Jews, is NOT A SPECIE OF ANIMAL. All species of animals both land and sea which possessed claws were haram to the Jews. Ayat 6146 is making entire species of animals haram due t their having claws and making a particular part of two halal animals, the fat. Specific to the Jews then, the pig is not represented in either of these two groups. Is this correct, yes or no.
But, like "the fat of sheep and ox", "The flesh of swine", is not a species of animal... Is it ?
Anyway, you argument is still a logical fallacy.
Let's imagine I say to my sons
"1) Forbidden to you are pornographic movies, because it is foul."
"2) And you, Derek, you are forbidden to watch movies with Tom Cruise, because of your rebellion (your refusing to do your homework). "Will you retort that my 2 prohibitions are contradicting each other ?
Will you retort that "Deep Throat" (it is a pornographic movie) can not be forbidden to Derek, because Tom Cruise does not play in ?Please reflect on the logical fallacies you are constantly making.
Peace
-
Peace,
I think the people who are individually arguing against this troll, rather than banging themselves up against the illogical arguments presented, should agree amongst themselves that DHULQARNANE is incapable of understanding simple logic.
Just accept that this person is not capable of understanding and move on. Many have tried, and unless you all smarten up, then this person is making a mockery out of everyone who responds.
Think about it... can you make an ape understand?
-
Salam PBM
The word "only" is self-evident. When Allah made animals with claws haram, what, do you think He made some animals with claws halal at the same time or some that He some other species of animal, in their entirety, haram? If so, then post that species. If you can't, then your question is not relevent. You still haven't answered my question
Not only is ayat 6146 about specific things made haram to the Jews, but the specific species of animal made haram by Allah, are only those with claws (why do you continue to ignore this fact?!), which, of course, excludes the animal pig. Is this not correct, yes or no?
Looking to your reply.
Khi- This is not a fact at all. Your completely wrong. The 'only' you conclude from 6146 is PURE CONJECTURE. Others may conclude from 6146 that those animal prohibitons are ONLY those made haram to the Jews BECAUSE OF THEIR TRANGRESSIONS while this does not obviously exclude other animals being made haram to them and those would be the universal prohibitions in 6145. In short 6146 is AN ADDITIONAL , NOT A COMPLETE, SET OF ANIMAL PROHINTIONS TO THE JEWS "DUE TO THEIR TRANSGRESSION". This last phrase makes it evident. GOD Bless!
O.K., fine, if the clawed species of animals weren't the "only" species of animals which Allah made haram to the Jews, then post the ayat where Allah tells us what other specie of animals, specific to the Jews, He made haram. If you cannot do this, then you are "only" conjecturng.
-
Salam PBM
Khi- This is not a fact at all. Your completely wrong. The 'only' you conclude from 6146 is PURE CONJECTURE. Others may conclude from 6146 that those animal prohibitons are ONLY those made haram to the Jews BECAUSE OF THEIR TRANGRESSIONS while this does not obviously exclude other animals being made haram to them and those would be the universal prohibitions in 6145. In short 6146 is AN ADDITIONAL , NOT A COMPLETE, SET OF ANIMAL PROHINTIONS TO THE JEWS "DUE TO THEIR TRANSGRESSION". This last phrase makes it evident. GOD Bless!
O.K., fine, if the clawed species of animals weren't the "only" species of animals which Allah made haram to the Jews, then post the ayat where Allah tells us what other specie of animals, specific to the Jews, He made haram. If you cannot do this, then you are "only" conjecturng.
Idmkhizar has not spoken of "species of animals made haram", he has spoken of "animal prohibitions".
And he has not spoken of animal prohibitions "specific to the jews", he has spoken of "animal prohibitions to the jews" (not specifically).Please do not distort what we express.
Well, you can find an other set of animal prohibitions applying to the jews in
- what is already dead
- blood
- lahma khinzeerin (the flesh of swine)
Hope you will not make us repeat it again.
-
PEACE, JM,
IDMKHIZIRKhi- This is not a fact at all. Your completely wrong. The 'only' you conclude from 6146 is PURE CONJECTURE. Others may conclude from 6146 that those animal prohibitons are ONLY those made haram to the Jews BECAUSE OF THEIR TRANGRESSIONS while this does not obviously exclude other animals being made haram to them and those would be the universal prohibitions in 6145. In short 6146 is AN ADDITIONAL , NOT A COMPLETE, SET OF ANIMAL PROHINTIONS TO THE JEWS "DUE TO THEIR TRANSGRESSION". This last phrase makes it evident. GOD Bless!
DHULQARNANEO.K., fine, if the clawed species of animals weren't the "only" species of animals which Allah made haram to the Jews, then post the ayat where Allah tells us what other specie of animals, specific to the Jews, He made haram. If you cannot do this, then you are "only" conjecturng.
JM Idmkhizar has not spoken of "species of animals made haram", he has spoken of "animal prohibitions".
And he has not spoken of animal prohibitions "specific to the jews", he has spoken of "animal prohibitions to the jews" (not specifically). Please do not distort what we express.Listen, I don't care what you or IDM, is "saying", I care what Allah is saying, and in ayat 6146, Allah, is speaking about a specific species of animals which He made haram, and a specific people to whom these specific species of animals were made haram. If you and IDM, are going to maintain the Jews were forbidden to eat the pig, then you must provide the ayat where Allah says, specifically, that He made the pig haram, specifically, to the Jews. The pig, not having claws, cannot be among the specific species of animals which Allah, specifically, made haram, specifically, to the Jews. Just your continuing to demand that lahm khinzeer means pig without refuting ayat 6146, which proves that it doesn't mean pig at all, is simply unbridled nonsense.
JM Well, you can find an other set of animal prohibitions applying to the jews in
- what is already dead
- blood
- lahma khinzeerin (the flesh of swine)
Those things above and NOT species of animals. Ayat 6146, is speaking about specific species of animals and a specific peoples. When is this major Quranic fact going to sink into you people's heads?
I Hope you will not make me repeat it again.
-
PEACE, JM,
JM But, like "the fat of sheep and ox", "The flesh of swine", is not a species of animal... Is it ?
Correct, however, other than the fat, the rest of the animal was halal, becuase it is not a clawed animal. Had it been clawed animal, then not only would the fat have been haram, but the whole animal would have been haram. Once again, this not withstanding, the pig is exempt, because, as with the ox, sheep, goat, ibix, antelope, deer etc., it doesn't have claws either. Tell me...what are you really arging?
-
PEACE, JM,
Listen, I don't care what you or IDM, is "saying", I care what Allah is saying, and in ayat 6146, Allah, is speaking about a specific species of animals which He made haram
No, is not about "specific species of animals".
There are none of the 3 words "specific", "species" and "animals" in .
is about food prohibitions.The fat of the cattle and the sheep (except what is attached to the back, or entrails, or mixed with bone) is not a " specific species of animals".
It is a food prohibition.If you and IDM, are going to maintain the Jews were forbidden to eat the pig, then you must provide the ayat where Allah says, specifically, that He made the pig haram, specifically, to the Jews.
No, there is no need of an ayat dealing specifically with the jews.
The food prohibitions listed in are availing for mankind, so, they have been availing to jews too.