CONCLUSION OF THE SWINE DEBATE
-
Peace PBM
you are not only refuted but EXPOSED
now leave it to the public to judge and stop ranting because it is nothing but a thin air and clearly exposes your confusion in the most simplest and important thing in life, the belief in Allah
go an learn arabic before you rant BS, because you are an embarrassment to yourself, sorry to tell you that
who are you who knows nothing about arabic to come and explain very clear arabic words?
I tell you who you are, you are a confused human like the non arab bukhari, who thought he can explain the Quran via human words, and you think you can explain it via your flawed words, lol
well I explained it using Allah words, in the Quran and in the OT
you don't believe in the previous books and this will warrant your "Kufr"
unless you explain to me how you statisfy this requirment by Allah to believe in the previous books inspired by Him?
possibly you just consider it a fugertive non existant simbol of an uncorrupted previous books, how can you explain that?
anyway no more talks about the pigs because it stinks already
I have one more thing to explain which is Rijsun then we move on
how was the ham and egg in your breakfast, good?
peace
-
Peace PBM
you are not only refuted but EXPOSED
now leave it to the public to judge and stop ranting because it is nothing but a thin air and clearly exposes your confusion in the most simplest and important thing in life, the belief in Allah
go an learn arabic before you rant BS, because you are an embarrassment to yourself, sorry to tell you that
who are you who knows nothing about arabic to come and explain very clear arabic words?
I tell you who you are, you are a confused human like the non arab bukhari, who thought he can explain the Quran via human words, and you think you can explain it via your flawed words, lol
well I explained it using Allah words, in the Quran and in the OT
you don't believe in the previous books and this will warrant your "Kufr"
unless you explain to me how you statisfy this requirment by Allah to believe in the previous books inspired by Him?
possibly you just consider it a fugertive non existant simbol of an uncorrupted previous books, how can you explain that?
anyway no more talks about the pigs because it stinks already
I have one more thing to explain which is Rijsun then we move on
how was the ham and egg in your breakfast, good?
peace
Your above ad hominem...is not a refutation of my analysis nor does it advance your own analysis. The only thing you've exposed is that, you are determined to support SUPERSTITION in derogation of Allah's Quran and truth. Allah, did not tell you to take any of the previous Books for your Guidance along with Al-Quran, and, if you maintain that He does, then you are a liar, mate. Again, the corrupted/doubtful Torah, claims that animals with undivided hoofs were haram, however, Al-Quran contradicts that, in that, it says that only animals with claws were haram to the Jews. Now, which Book do you believe has the correct account? Don't you think Allah knows the difference between a hoof and a claw, though apparently, you and Marie do not? lol
Your "argument" has been thoroughly dismantled. If you wish to serve your gods--SUPERSTITION and CONJECTURE, then that is fine by me. bravo
Oh, yeah and...stop being a...SNEAK...and now a...SLANDERER.
Oh, btw, When you turn to personal attacks, you scream out that you have been thoroughly proved wrong....loser lol
-
In this Deen, "things" are divided into the halal and the haram. Under the category of the halal and the haram are foods and behaviors. Do you agree with this? If lahma khinzeer is the animal pig as you claim it is, then it must be determined if it is a halal thing/food or a haram thing/food---for anybody. Do you agree with this?
Things are not divided into halal and haram. This system only defines what is forbidden (haram) and everything else is permitted to choice. There is no "halal" defined per se; everything is by default unless forbidden.
Your statement is completely wrong - if lahm khinzir is pig meat then it is not to be determined what it's status is - the verse says that this item is forbidden. Nothing to determine at all.
Finally, have you actually put the swine meat where your mouth is? Have you committed to your ideas by consuming swine meat?
-
PBM In this Deen, "things" are divided into the halal and the haram. Under the category of the halal and the haram are foods and behaviors. Do you agree with this? If lahma khinzeer is the animal pig as you claim it is, then it must be determined if it is a halal thing/food or a haram thing/food---for anybody. Do you agree with this?
Things are not divided into halal and haram. This system only defines what is forbidden (haram) and everything else is permitted to choice. There is no "halal" defined per se; everything is by default unless forbidden.
What kind of double talk is that?? Look, whatever Allah didn't DEFINITIVELY declare to be haram is halal and that is a division no matter how you wish to cut it. Anyway, show us where Allah, DEFINITIVELY, in Al-Quran, made the pig haram for the Jews as food, thanks.
Your statement is imprecise - if lahm khinzir is pig meat then it is not to be determined what it's status is - the verse says that this item is forbidden. Nothing to determine at all.
Then if lahm khinzir is pig's meat, then you will have no problem, via Al-Quran, showing where Allah made it haram for the Jews. If you cannot find this ayat, then you cannot, per ayat 16116, make haram what Allah did not, hence, ayat 55 destroys your notion that pig is haram for those who came before and after Al-Quran...get it? wink
-
My analysis that PGM is not a muslim and just pretending to be, I met a few of those online but always exposed them
I may be wrong, but I will see if he "the non arabic speaker truely understands the arabic words"
now if he kept ranting about the same subject, he has to be one or the other
- He is obssessed with pigs
- He is faking his islam and just to stir the air between muslims
-
My analysis that PGM is not a muslim and just pretending to be, I met a few of those online but always exposed them
I may be wrong, but I will see if he "the non arabic speaker truely understands the arabic words"
now if he kept ranting about the same subject, he has to be one or the other
- He is obssessed with pigs
- He is faking his islam and just to stir the air between muslims
Your above ad hominem...is not a refutation of my analysis nor does it advance your own analysis. The only thing you've exposed is that, you are determined to support SUPERSTITION in derogation of Allah's Quran and truth. Allah, did not tell you to take any of the previous Books for your Guidance along with Al-Quran, and, if you maintain that He does, then you are a liar, mate. Again, the corrupted/doubtful Torah, claims that animals with undivided hoofs were haram, however, Al-Quran contradicts that, in that, it says that only animals with claws were haram to the Jews. Now, which Book do you believe has the correct account? Don't you think Allah knows the difference between a hoof and a claw, though apparently, you and Marie do not? lol
Your "argument" has been thoroughly dismantled. If you wish to serve your gods--SUPERSTITION and CONJECTURE, then that is fine by me. bravo
Oh, yeah and...stop being a...SNEAK...and now a...SLANDERER.
-
Profiler 2005 database updated
lol
-
Profiler 2005 database updated
lol
Your above ad hominem...is not a refutation of my analysis nor does it advance your own analysis. The only thing you've exposed is that, you are determined to support SUPERSTITION in derogation of Allah's Quran and truth. Allah, did not tell you to take any of the previous Books for your Guidance along with Al-Quran, and, if you maintain that He does, then you are a liar, mate. Again, the corrupted/doubtful Torah, claims that animals with undivided hoofs were haram, however, Al-Quran contradicts that, in that, it says that only animals with claws were haram to the Jews. Now, which Book do you believe has the correct account? Don't you think Allah knows the difference between a hoof and a claw, though apparently, you and Marie do not? lol
Your "argument" has been thoroughly dismantled. If you wish to serve your gods--SUPERSTITION and CONJECTURE, then that is fine by me. bravo
Oh, yeah and...stop being a...SNEAK...and now a...SLANDERER.
Oh, btw, When you turn to personal attacks, you scream out that you have been thoroughly proved wrong....loser lol
-
Profiler 2005 has proposed a guess that you are a fake muslim faking your islam to confuse the true muslims
I'm not kiddin brothers and sisters, you have been warned
I'm sure he managed to get a few minds of you ticking but again it is nothing but a thin air
also brothers and sisters I have been invloved in a huge struggle with many persons online who are clearcut enemy of islams and they get paid to promote propganada to confuse the muslims
one of their tricks is to pose as muslims
I swear by Allah brothers and sisters it is true
PB is so far been classified as a prospect one of those sick people
it is obvious in his commnets, as well he lack total knoweldge in the Quran and only maipulate the clear meaning to serve ugly plan
Allah will expose the freaks
peace to all
-
Your statement is imprecise - if lahm khinzir is pig meat then it is not to be determined what it's status is - the verse says that this item is forbidden. Nothing to determine at all.
Then if lahm khinzir is pig's meat, then you will have no problem, via Al-Quran, showing where Allah made it haram for the Jews. If you cannot find this ayat, then you cannot, per ayat 16116, make haram what Allah did not, hence, ayat 55 destroys your notion that pig is haram for those who came before and after Al-Quran...get it? wink
But you missed this entirely in the thread above.
I've already stated to you that absence of evidence is not equivalent to evidence of absence. If it is not mentioned, it does not mean that there was not a restriction in place.
The reading does not mention for example that bestiality is forbidden to the Jews. Does that by your logic mean that it was permissible?
-
PB has nothing to say but to repeate his BS
he is 100% a fake muslim
Profiler 2005 is very accurate program
twisted
-
Your statement is imprecise - if lahm khinzir is pig meat then it is not to be determined what it's status is - the verse says that this item is forbidden. Nothing to determine at all.
Then if lahm khinzir is pig's meat, then you will have no problem, via Al-Quran, showing where Allah made it haram for the Jews. If you cannot find this ayat, then you cannot, per ayat 16116, make haram what Allah did not, hence, ayat 55 destroys your notion that pig is haram for those who came before and after Al-Quran...get it? wink
But you missed this entirely in the thread above.
I've missed nothing.
I've already stated to you that absence of evidence is not equivalent to evidence of absence. If it is not mentioned, it does not mean that there was not a restriction in place.
It doesn't matter what you state. What matters is what Allah states. In the absence of Quranic evidence it is haram, per ayats 733 and 1736, to say of Allah and His Deen and follow anything of which you cannot, by way of His Quran, prove. Now, given that you CANNOT prove that the pig was haram to the Jews, you CANNOT, per ayat 16116, on your own, declare it to be haram in Allah's name, period, end of story. Now, given that the pig cannot be proven to have been haram for the Jews, then, per ayat 55, their food is halal to us, hence, the pig was halal to them and for us as well.
The reading does not mention for example that bestiality is forbidden to the Jews. Does that by your logic mean that it was permissible?
Bestiality is a shameful deed and, as such, per ayat 733, is haram. Anyway, we are not debating bestiality, were are debating FOOD. Please stay focused.
-
Now, given that the pig cannot be proven to have been haram for the Jews, then, per ayat 55, their food is halal to us, hence, the pig was halal to them and for us as well.
Nonsense. You agree that you do not know what was forbidden to the Jews and yet you construct a nonsense argument from this lack of knowledge.
You base your argument upon 6146
6146 Unto those who are Jews We forbade every animal with claws. And of the oxen and the sheep forbade We unto them the fat thereof save that upon the backs or the entrails, or that which is mixed with the bone. That we awarded them for their rebellion. And lo! we verily are truthful.
Consider that and then look at the following statement analogous to yours above...
"Now, given that blood cannot be proven to have been haram for the Jews, then, per ayat 55, their food is halal to us, hence, blood was halal to them and for us as well."
Do you still have no sense?
-
PB has nothing to say but to repeate his BS
he is 100% a fake muslim
Profiler 2005 is very accurate program
twisted
When you resort to personal attacks, you scream out that you have been thoroughly proved wrong...accept that and move on.
-
PBM Now, given that the pig cannot be proven to have been haram for the Jews, then, per ayat 55, their food is halal to us, hence, the pig was halal to them and for us as well.
Nonsense. You agree that you do not know what was forbidden to the Jews and yet you construct a nonsense argument from this lack of knowledge.
I do know, per ayat 6146, what was made haram to the Jews relative food and the pig is not one of them...PIGS DON"T HAVE CLAWS. Why is that reality so difficult for you to wrap your mind around? Anyway, per ayat 16116, you cannot make the pig haram, regarding the Jews, when Allah didn't. And that my friend...is the bottomline.
You base your argument upon 6146
6146 Unto those who are Jews We forbade every animal with claws. And of the oxen and the sheep forbade We unto them the fat thereof save that upon the backs or the entrails, or that which is mixed with the bone. That we awarded them for their rebellion. And lo! we verily are truthful.
Consider that and then look at the following statement analogous to yours above...
"Now, given that blood cannot be proven to have been haram for the Jews, then, per ayat 55, their food is halal to us, hence, blood was halal to them and for us as well."
Do you still have no sense?
I'm not interested in analogies, I'm interested in cold Quranic fact. Allah, in the above ayat, made animals with claws haram to the Jews. Pigs do not have claws, hence, their species cannot be represented in the animals with claws.
I'll ask you a very simple question...do pigs have claws, yes or no?
-
PBM Now, given that the pig cannot be proven to have been haram for the Jews, then, per ayat 55, their food is halal to us, hence, the pig was halal to them and for us as well.
Nonsense. You agree that you do not know what was forbidden to the Jews and yet you construct a nonsense argument from this lack of knowledge.
I do know, per ayat 6146, what was made haram to the Jews relative food and the pig is not one of them...PIGS DON"T HAVE CLAWS. Why is that reality so difficult for you to wrap your mind around? Anyway, per ayat 16116, you cannot make the pig haram, regarding the Jews, when Allah didn't. And that my friend...is the bottomline.
You base your argument upon 6146
6146 Unto those who are Jews We forbade every animal with claws. And of the oxen and the sheep forbade We unto them the fat thereof save that upon the backs or the entrails, or that which is mixed with the bone. That we awarded them for their rebellion. And lo! we verily are truthful.
Consider that and then look at the following statement analogous to yours above...
"Now, given that blood cannot be proven to have been haram for the Jews, then, per ayat 55, their food is halal to us, hence, blood was halal to them and for us as well."
Do you still have no sense?
I'm not interested in analogies, I'm interested in cold Quranic fact. Allah, in the above ayat, made animals with claws haram to the Jews. Pigs do not have claws, hence, their species cannot be represented in the animals with claws.
I'll ask you a very simple question...do pigs have claws, yes or no?
That analogy which you brush off refutes your entire premise.
6146 mentions NOTHING about blood, nor carrion therefore they MUST have been permissible to the Jews according to you. And therefore going by your logic and 55 then it MUST be permissible for Muslims.
Your logic fails, and because you have failed in your logic then your argument has been refuted.
Do you still fail to see that?
Here's another one for you...
"Now, given that carrion cannot be proven to have been haram for the Jews, then, per ayat 55, their food is halal to us, hence, carrion was halal to them and for us as well."
Your logic fails. Your argument is refuted. You have been debunked. That concludes the 'swine debate'.
-
I'm not interested in analogies, I'm interested in cold Quranic fact. Allah, in the above ayat, made animals with claws haram to the Jews. Pigs do not have claws, hence, their species cannot be represented in the animals with claws.
I'll ask you a very simple question...do pigs have claws, yes or no?
That analogy which you brush off refutes your entire premise.
Will your analogy make pigs have claws?, if not, then your analogy is irrelevent and fails. Answer the question do pigs have claws...yes or no?
Your logic fails, and because you have failed in your logic then your argument has been refuted.
You are really on some fantasy trip, why do you fail to see that?
Your logic fails. Your argument is refuted. You have been debunked. That concludes the 'swine debate'
Prove that pigs have claws and then you will debunk my arguement, however, until you do that, you are simply wandering in your own mind.
-
Prove that pigs have claws and then you will debunk my arguement, however, until you do that, you are simply wandering in your own mind.
Red herring.
The analogy is sufficient to completely and utterly refute your argument and you know it.
Red herring?? You prove my point that...you are so afraid of the truth that you cannot even answer a simple question. What will you do if a someone comes to you and ask...do pig have claws? What will you answer be..."that's a red herring"? LOL!!!
Don't you realize that your refusal to answer this absolutely relevent question proves to one and all, beyond any doubt, that your argument is bankrupt and fraudulent, don't you realize this yet? You aren't fooling anyone except yourself.
Again
-
Will your analogy make pigs have claws?, if not, then your analogy is irrelevent and fails. Answer the question do pigs have claws...yes or no?
-
Prove that pigs have claws and then you will debunk my arguement, however, until you do that, you are simply wandering in your own mind and misrepresenting Allah and His Deen. You should think long and hard about what you are doing here, mate.
There is NO defeating ayat 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116. As with Ahmed and the others...you are finished, kaput.
-
-
Prove that pigs have claws and then you will debunk my arguement, however, until you do that, you are simply wandering in your own mind.
Red herring.
The analogy is sufficient to completely and utterly refute your argument and you know it.
Red herring?? You prove my point that...you are so afraid of the truth that you cannot even answer a simple question. What will you do if a someone comes to you and ask...do pig have claws? What will you answer be..."that's a red herring"? LOL!!!
Your denial is futile. Here it is in simple terms.
Your basic premise was...
Now, given that you CANNOT prove that the pig was haram to the Jews, you CANNOT, per ayat 16116, on your own, declare it to be haram in Allah's name, period, end of story
I'm writing this for the benefit of those who may not be up to speed with the reason your argument is falsified. I believe that you understand this but are being stubborn in your denial.
Your argument hangs around the point that a person cannot bring you proof that swine was forbidden to the Jews. You therefore imply that it must have been permissible for them. And through 55 you imply that it is permissible for someone following the reading.
You are firstly making the logical fallacy of believing 6146 to be an exhaustive statement in relation to the dietary restrictions on Jews.
In 6146 there is no mention of blood or carrion being forbidden. Can you prove that it was forbidden to the Jews through the reading alone?
If you cannot, then based on your false logic it means it was permissible for them and thereby through 55 according to you is permissible for all.
But this is false, and so is your deduction of pig being permissible to us via the same argument through 6146->55. By your false logic other nonsense can also enter, so that the eating of slaughtered humans and faeces is also possible because 6146 does not explicitly forbid them to the Jews.
That should be sufficient for anyone to understand the error of your logic and the reason why your argument is refuted and you are debunked.