CONCLUSION OF THE SWINE DEBATE
-
PEACE, SWEDEN,
I know I shouldn't post here because you don't like me and my opinions.
You can post anywhere you like. It's only me who cannot post anywhere I like. Where do you get the idea that I don't like you or what you have to say on a given topic? I would very much like to hear from you, however, what I don't like is for someone to be rude to me/say things to me which they know they wouldn't say to me face to face ( like Jaxal for example). I don't give my opinions anymore, because Allah, per ayat 733, makes it haram for man to give opinions relative to Him and His Deen. We must only, per ayat 1736, follow what we know as absolute fact, that is, what we have knowledge of.
But I have something I'm confused about. The word for pig or swine, it seems like in all language it has a bad meaning for some reasons.
The pig, universally, does have a bad name. It smells bad, makes weird noises, eats just about anything, likes to wallow in mud, is fat, ugly, yet, despite these things, the pig, except by some Jews and some so-called Muslims, is loved universally for its meat products.
You guys who know the arabic language very well must be aware of the true word for pig, swine don't you? If there are a wellknown word that all understands then God must use that word also in Quran, or!!!???
While khinzeer, in the Arabic language, does mean pig, it also means "that which I see as bad/the ill-seeming". The question then, is,... which definition did Allah choose to use in His Quran? As ayats 55 and 6146 prove, nowhere, has Allah made the pig haram, hence, khinzeer, cannot mean pig in Al-Quran, but the ill-seeming/that which I see as bad". I think if you really read my post dated Wed Sep 28, 2005 452 pm of this thread, it will be very apparent to you that, the pig, was never haram to man.
If it's only an appelation like "ill seeming" then of course it can goes for all bad meats infected with bacterias and so on.
I'm not certain what you mean here. Perhaps you could re-state your comment.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
Salaam PB,
Thanks for your reply,
Well what I actually meant with ill-seeming meat is that it can goes for nearly all meat if it's rotten for example or have been infected of parasites and bacterias, then it doesn't matter if the meat is from a cow or a goat or a pig.
If the arabic word khinzeer also means ill-seeming something bad then I can have a understanding that is what God is telling us in Quran.
But I'm not sure of course but not totally against that possibilities that khinzeer doesn't have to mean that pig is haram.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
PEACE, SWEDEN,
Well what I actually meant with ill-seeming meat is that it can goes for nearly all meat if it's rotten for example or have been infected of parasites and bacterias, then it doesn't matter if the meat is from a cow or a goat or a pig. If the arabic word khinzeer also means ill-seeming something bad then I can have a understanding that is what God is telling us in Quran.
I thought this is what you meant, but now you've made it clear for me. Yes, now you have it. Khninzeer, not only applies to infected cow, goat, me, but fruits, vegetables, and "toxic"/anti-Quranic people, as well.
But I'm not sure of course but not totally against that possibilities that khinzeer doesn't have to mean that pig is haram.
If you want to clear up any doubts, just read the post I gave you on this thread and you will have no doubt that, khinzeer, does not mean the animal pig in Al-Quran. Neither Marie, Savage Carrot, Tanveer, /JM/, nor Jaxal, can refute, Quranically, my analysis that post I referred you to. Are you able to reufute it? Ayats 55 and 6146, when taken together, completely dispel any notion that the pig is haram as food for mankind.
The so-called Muslim ummah, for a very long time now, has been laboring under so many lies/distortions...this is just one of them.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
Salaam Pb,
you wroteNow, Allah, per ayat 55, tells us that the food of the People of the Book/the Jews, is halal for us and vice versa. I've established without doubt that, prior to Al-Quran, the pig was not haram, because there exists no Quranic evidence to support such a claim, (JM, backs this up), thus, the pig, at the time Al-Quran is being revealed, is halal for the Muslim, because it was halal for the Jews/People of the Book, in that, it was NEVER haram to them in the first place. The fat of oxen and sheep and clawed animals become halal for the People of the Books/Jews, because these things were never haram for mankind in general in the first place, just for the Jews in particular, as punishment for their transgressions and not due to these things being in and of themselves rijsun/fasiqun/unhealthy for the eater to eat.
I suddenly get a thought of that the mention of khinzeer is mention together with blood and if we use the logic in this it must mean a ill-seeming meat not a special flesh of an animal.
It would be strange if God put the name of an forbidden animal together with blood, it must be an misunderstanding.Well sorry I'm in a rush I will come back later on Insha Allah.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Salaam Br Pb,
I checked the verse 6145 and there is khinzer mention together with apes and in that case it must refer to pig.
So I'm sorry I have nothing more to add.
I just don't know if khinzer is always used to mean pig or that it can also mean ill-seeming.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
PEACE, SWEDEN,
PBM you wroteNow, Allah, per ayat 55, tells us that the food of the People of the Book/the Jews, is halal for us and vice versa. I've established without doubt that, prior to Al-Quran, the pig was not haram, because there exists no Quranic evidence to support such a claim, (JM, backs this up), thus, the pig, at the time Al-Quran is being revealed, is halal for the Muslim, because it was halal for the Jews/People of the Book, in that, it was NEVER haram to them in the first place. The fat of oxen and sheep and clawed animals become halal for the People of the Books/Jews, because these things were never haram for mankind in general in the first place, just for the Jews in particular, as punishment for their transgressions and not due to these things being in and of themselves rijsun/fasiqun/unhealthy for the eater to eat.
I suddenly get a thought of that the mention of khinzeer is mention together with blood and if we use the logic in this it must mean a ill-seeming meat not a special flesh of an animal. It would be strange if God put the name of an forbidden animal together with blood, it must be an misunderstanding.
Majidah, your consciousness is heightening, all praises due to Allah. Of course your logic is sound in this matter. When this argument was first introduced to me over a year ago, the presenter, came to the same conclusion which you did in your above comment. The more you read the post I gave you, the more clear this becomes. D
Peace.
-
PEACE, SWEDEN,
I checked the verse 6145 and there is khinzer mention together with apes and in that case it must refer to pig.
I don't think you mean ayat 6145. I don't see apes in this ayat.
So I'm sorry I have nothing more to add.
No, problem.
I just don't know if khinzer is always used to mean pig or that it can also mean ill-seeming.
Khinzeer, while it does mean pig in the Arabic language, it also means ill-seeming/that what I see as bad. As you are beginning to see, Allah, does not use the animal pig definition in His Quran. This is what must be understood, do you see? You are undoubtedly a logic young lady, so having said that, do you realy believe, logically, that Allah transformed human beings into actual apes and pigs like we see in the zoos?
Peace.
-
I've established without doubt that, prior to Al-Quran, the pig was not haram, because there exists no Quranic evidence to support such a claim
All this proves is that Muhammads book is wrong, because we know that PIG is forbidden in the Torah and this is pre-quran.
The fat of oxen and sheep and clawed animals become halal for the People of the Books/Jews
Apparently Allah forgot to tell the Jews about this so called New law, because there is no such food law in Jewish scripture that forbids "Clawed animals/birds". In fact the Torah lists many clawed birds by name that are lawful to the Jews.
What is the point in making such a Law and than forgetting to tell the Jews about it!!!....
And the Jews already knew about the "fat of oxen and sheep" Law long before they broke the covenant of Moses, so how this can be punishment is yet another discrepancy in Muhammads Book..
..
-
Salaam Albion,
Well you should be known to that the Torah has been changed of humans to fit their needs.
It was one of the reasons why I left christianity.
Quran came and make everything alright again and you should know that people have tried to destroy Quran too and they have in some way because they add to their deen extra rules and additions in form of ahadiths and then claimed the stories father was prophet Muhaammed and then all blind people just couldn't resist to follow these manmade tales and deserted the Quran.
Therefore when we study Al-Quran we have to study for real and don't be blind so it is the real message we will adhere to.
I know it can sounds difficult and strange but we have to do that and my belief is that a one that really want to find the truth will find the truth Insha Allah.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Salaam Pb,
Well thanks for your replies,
I'm not a stranger to keep holding on to that understanding that khinzeer can refer to ill-seeming.
But I will keep this open until I realize more Brother!
I don't want to rush into something!
Peace
Sis Majidah -
PEACE, SWEDEN,
Salaam Pb,
Well thanks for your replies,
I'm not a stranger to keep holding on to that understanding that khinzeer can refer to ill-seeming.
But I will keep this open until I realize more Brother!
I don't want to rush into something!
Peace
Sis MajidahGood deal.
Peace.
-
PEACE, MQURAN and ALBION,
I requested that your discussion be removed from this thread and given its own thread. What you are discussing, while it is extremely important, is off-topic and should not be caught up in this thread. Hope you guys don't mind.
Peace.
-
Salaams All,
just came accross these few details
From [email protected] (Mark Rayman)
Date Tue, 18 Feb 97 121551 EST
Subject Wallaby, Camel, Hyrax and the HareThe torah does describe three animals as being "ma'aleh gerah" (cud
chewing) and not cloven hoofed the gamal (camel), shafan (hyrax or
coney), and the arnevet (hare).Many commentaries point out the neither the hyrax or the hare, (or
rabbits) actually chew their cud.Rabbi Hirsch in his commentary says that we must be misidentifying these
animals, and the true meaning of "arnevet" and "shafan" are not known.Rabbi Amitai ben David, in his book "sichat chulin", at the end of the
third perek, has a lengthy discussion of this issue. He quotes some
sources as saying that since these animals are always "chewing", even
when not eating, it "seems" as if they are chewing their cud.Rabbi Ben David, as well as Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (Living Torah, Vayikra
11) state that although rabbits do not chew their cud, they do eat their
fecal matter, and are therefore considered to be "ma'aleh gerah".One must also point out the camels do not chew their cud in the same way
the cows do. Camels only have three stomachs, and cows have four.We see from all this (especially if we accpet R. Ben David and Rabbi
Kaplan) is that there is not a clear singular definition of ma'aleh
gerah. And it certainly includes more than just ruminants.So the statement by the Talmud (Chulin, somewhere in the third perek)
which started this whole threadThe ruler of his world (Hashem) knows that there are no other
ma'aleh gerah that do not "split the hoof" other than the camel
(and shafan and arnevet)"is very hard to evaluate, verify, or question becuase we do not have a
good definition of "ma'aleh gera".Moshe Rayman
LEVITICUS SAYS
115 and the coney, because he cheweth the cud but divideth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you;
116 and the hare, because he cheweth the cud but divideth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you;
117 and the swine, though he divide the hoof and is cloven-footed, yet he cheweth not the cud, he is unclean to you.
118 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THESE BIBLICAL WORDS MAY NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THE SAME AS IN MODERN HEBREW where the respective translations are camel, cony and hare.
In fact, the cony and hare neither chew their cud nor have split hooves.
So even this Torah is mistranslated??????
And Lastly CHAZIR(SWINE) LOOKS AND SOUNDS LIKE THE Arabic word kHANZIR ? I wonder if this has anything to do with the mistranslation.
God Bless All.
-
PEACE, MZ357,
Good information. Could you give a sentance or two in summary of what you believe the article is stating?
-
Salaams PB,
I wonder if any Br. has more info on this
Essentially the Rabi above is saying that the signs of the animals mentiuoned in the torah Leviticus 11-15 are not all true when looking at the real animals, therefore the words/names-signifying the various animals is wrong,and more then likely they mean other things.
Then again this was mentioned on another jewish forum that Biblical Names may not be same as Modern Hebrew Meanings.
And more then likely the meanings may be as in the quran ,Dead,Blood And things that are Bad e.t.c I wonder though!
God Bless.
-
PEACE, MZ357,
Salaams PB,
I wonder if any Br. has more info on this
Essentially the Rabi above is saying that the signs of the animals mentiuoned in the torah Leviticus 11-15 are not all true when looking at the real animals, therefore the words/names-signifying the various animals is wrong,and more then likely they mean other things.
Then again this was mentioned on another jewish forum that Biblical Names may not be same as Modern Hebrew Meanings.
And more then likely the meanings may be as in the quran ,Dead,Blood And things that are Bad e.t.c I wonder though!
God Bless.
Thanks, Mz. Given the Rabbis uncertainty, the latter part of the following ayat comes to mind
4157...and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture...
Peace.
-
PEACE, TO ALL,
This is the latest summary of the lahma khinzeer debate.
-
Lahma khinzeer, according to the Arabic dictionaries, has two meanings for khinzeer. Based on the ayat itself, there are two, on-the-surface, reasonable arguments for why it can mean pig or ill-seeming/that which I see as bad".
-
The "RIJSUN/HEALTH PROBLEM" argument, as with the above two arguments, also has on-the-surface reasonable arguments as to why it can and cannot be true.
-
The "BECAUSE ALLAH SAID SO" argument, is rejected as it defys 1736 and is nothing more than blind following.
-
The "OLD TESTAMENT" argument is rejected as it goes outside of the uncorrupted and perfect, Al-Quran.
-
The "GRAMMAR/AW" argument, as with the aforementioned, has on-the-surface- reasonable arguements.
-
The 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116 argument, has no reasonable counter-argument, hence, is why it has not been, via Al-Quran, refuted.
PROOF THAT THE PIG IS HALAL
4160 For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain things good/wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from Allah's Way;-
A. There is no counter-argument that a people, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, were disallowed certain previous halal "things" due to their having disobeyed Allah.
B. There is no counter-argument that, food items and animals are..."things".
C. There is no counter-argument that "things", such as food items and animals, have been categorized has halal and haram.
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.
A. There is no counter-argument that, the above ayat mentions good and and halal things and, mentions food items "things" as being halal. This ayat expands on/explains ayat 4160.
B. There is no counter-argument that, nowhere in Al-Quran, can we find any evidence that the pig, prior to the advent of Al-Quran, was haram to any people.
C. There is no counter-argument that, with "B" in mind, those who preceded Al-Quran were not forbidden to eat the pig, thus, the pig had to have been halal as there is no evidence that it was haram, thus, at the time this ayat was revealed, the pig being halal to those before Al-Quran, had to have been/is halal for those who received Al-Quran.
6146 For those who followed the Jewish Law, We forbade every (animal) with claws, and We forbade them that fat of the ox and the sheep, except what adheres to their backs or their entrails, or is mixed up with a bone this in recompense for their wilful disobedience for We are true (in Our ordinances).
A. There is no counter-argument that, pigs don't have claws.
B. There is no counter-argument that thufr does not and cannot mean hoof, because if it did then the sheep and oxen in their entirety along with their fat would have been haram, because like the pig...they have hooves as well. Once one defines define thufr as hooves, then ayat 6146 contradicts itself as to what was made haram for the Jews. Only the fat of sheep and oxen were made haram, thus, if you define thufr as hoof, well, now you've created a contradiction, because now the entire sheep and oxen become haram.
Based on the above ayats then, there is simply no Quranic support for defining lahma khinzeer as the meat of pig, because there is no Quranic counter-argument for them, thus, they override and cancel out arguments 2-5. Only the very ego-driven, the prejudice dominated and the superstition ridden, after this will continue to support that the pig is haram.
I welcome any other thoughts for the summary.
Peace.
-
-
Oh yeh PBM and there is no refute for this that should knock your argument to the ground for good, don't be arrogant and please listen to someone who knows the arabic language better than you at least
CAN YOU REFUTE THIS BRO?
CAN ANY ARBIC SPEAKER REFUTE THIS?
Here is my challenge and I will be sporty enough to concede if proven wrong
We can say the following
? ?, which has one meaning only ?The meat of the chicken?
we can also say the following and it also has the same exact meaning
? ?, again it also has one meaning ? the meat of a chicken?
can you spot the difference?
I. Bloody E. , to use another word to relate Lahm "Meat" to any noun of a creature, like, a Chicken, a Cow or a Pig
Lahm "MUST NOT HAVE THE AL"
like , ? ? or ? ?
can any one with two or one eye, see the above?, if you don't know arabic and you are not arrogant then let me expalin, just look at the first arabic words ? ? and memorise its shape, you will note that IT DOES NOT HAVE "AL" in front of "Lahm", while the chicken, can have "AL" or it can not have "AL", the two examples are shown above
the same meaning willbe the same if the chicken does not have "AL" or it does have "AL", and both mean "meat of a chicken", or "Meat of the chicken", "AL" in arabic means "THE"
this means "Lahm" CAN NOT HAVE "THE" if we want to relate to a specific type of meat
now, let?s now apply another Arabic word that describe the meat instead of associating it with a noun of a creature, for example, the following is valid
? ?, it simply means ?barbequed meat?
the following is also valid
? ?, it means ?rotten meat
now the following is also valid
? ?, it means ?the barbequed meat?as well the following is valid
? ?, which means ?the rotten meat?
I. Bloody E.
if the second word is to describe the meat, like "Rotten" or "Babecued" or whatever hell of a description
Lahm can come with "AL" which is "THE" and it can also come without "THE" like this
? ?, without the "AL"
? ?, with the "AL
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING AN HONEST PERSON LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH IS THIS
the second word describing the "Lahm", MUST FOLLOW THE LAHM IN RELATION TO THE "AL"
I. Bloody E.
if "Lahm" has the "AL", then the adjective MUST have the "AL"
if Lahm does not have the "AL" then the adjective MUST NOT have the "AL"
so the following can not be VALID
? ? "This sentence can not exist in the arabic langauge" and can not be translated to any other language, sorry
I. Bloody E.
"Al Fasid" which means "The Rotten" can not describe Lahm without Lahm having the ?Al? because "Al Fasid" has the "Al",
if "Lahm " does not have the "Al", the the desription MUST follow that and should not have the "AL"
Applying this common knowledge about Arabic Grammer, on the verses where the meat of the pig appeared we see the Quarn used Lahm without ?Al? and Khanzir was used with ?Al? and without ?Al?
Like this
? ?
? ?
The above two Arabic sentences as appeared in the Quran can not be valid unless ?Khanzir? is a noun, like the chicken example
if ?Khanzir? is an adjective then ? ? is not valid Arabic sentence as I bloody explained two times now
I ask Allah to help you understand this 100% logical refute to that argument you have in hand
Peace
-
Like I said, all of your notions about grammar, which you don't fully understand, cannot refute ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116. If what you wrote is true, then it would, at the same time, refute those ayats...why can't your explanation do that?
Give it break Ahmed. I don't care if you speak Arabic or the King's English, it will not help you to refute the aforementioned ayats. Even Marie, had to pack it in, because she cannot do it either.
lol