CONCLUSION OF THE SWINE DEBATE
-
You're talking rubbish and distorting the plain facts again and being deceptive. The verse does not talk simply about animals; it talks about parts of animals - namely the fat of sheep and cattle as well.
Fine, no problem, do sheep and oxen have claws? yes or no? Do pigs have claws? yes or no?
Do oxen, sheep and other animals have blood?
According to your false logic, because the blood of animals is not mentioned in this crucial verse for your argument, then it MUST be permissible.
The ayat and I, if you would pay attention, are talking about what ANIMALS IN THEIR ENTIRETY and what ANIMAL PARTS, DEFINITIVELY, were made haram to the JEWS, before the coming of Al-Quran. So, is the pig represented in either of those two categories...yes or no? lol
Is blood of any animal represented as forbidden in that verse?
Therefore it matters not what was forbidden to the Jews in 6146 from which we can derive no benefit or any conclusions. I have shown you this with the example of blood also escaping prohibition from that verse.
Your desire to use 6146 through 55 to springboard pig onto our dinnerplates is therefore false logic.
The key is 6145 which puts into place the reading's prohibition on food. In that verse you find blood, carrion and the flesh of pigs forbidden to the reasonable person.
Your roundabout logic of 6146 being exhaustive to 55 etc. is not only false but ultimately irrelevant.
-
truth You're talking rubbish and distorting the plain facts again and being deceptive. The verse does not talk simply about animals; it talks about parts of animals - namely the fat of sheep and cattle as well.
PBM Fine, no problem, do sheep and oxen have claws? yes or no? Do pigs have claws? yes or no?
Do oxen, sheep and other animals have blood?
You ask the wrong question. The question is...were the oxen and sheep, in their entirety...haram to the Jews.
According to your false logic, because the blood of animals is not mentioned in this crucial verse for your argument, then it MUST be permissible.
The ayat, once again, is talking about what animals, whether in whole or or part, were made haram to the Jews. Stay focused, thanks.
The ayat and I, if you would pay attention, are talking about what ANIMALS IN THEIR ENTIRETY and what ANIMAL PARTS, DEFINITIVELY, were made haram to the JEWS, before the coming of Al-Quran. So, is the pig represented in either of those two categories...yes or no? lol
Is blood of any animal represented as forbidden in that verse?
You did not answer my question, please do. It is critical to your gaining the proper understanding in this matter.
Therefore it matters not what was forbidden to the Jews in 6146 from which we can derive no benefit or any conclusions. I have shown you this with the example of blood also escaping prohibition from that verse.
LOL!!! If it doesn't matter what was made haram to the Jews, then Allah simply wasted His time with ayat 6146. LOL! my God are you ever desperate!
Your desire to use 6146 through 55 to springboard pig onto our dinnerplates is therefore false logic. The key is 6145 which puts into place the reading's prohibition on food. In that verse you find blood, carrion and the flesh of pigs forbidden to the reasonable person. Your roundabout logic of 6146 being exhaustive to 55 etc. is not only false but ultimately irrelevant.
LOL!, yeah, right. Anyway..do pigs have claws..yes or no? If not, then your erroneous position crumbles before you, because if pigs don't have claws, YOU HAVE NO WAY OF DECLARING/PROVING THAT IT IS HARAM FOR FOOD, end of story. lol You'rE done, truth...accept it. wink
-
Salam PBM,
LOL!!! If it doesn't matter what was made haram to the Jews, then Allah simply wasted His time with ayat 6146. LOL! my God are you ever desperate!
Khi- Salam. As "truth" remarked WHAT ABOUT BLOOD THEN? GOD didnt mention that prohibition for the Jews either in 6146 nor anywhere else in the Quran. But he did prohibit blood in the Quran didnt he? Or do you interpret "ad-damm" to mean something else now as well? Is blood halal too according to you since GOD in the Quran doesnt mention it to have been forbidden for the people of the book? Do you see now that your argument doesnt hold up to scrutiny? GOD Bless!
-
truth You're talking rubbish and distorting the plain facts again and being deceptive. The verse does not talk simply about animals; it talks about parts of animals - namely the fat of sheep and cattle as well.
PBM Fine, no problem, do sheep and oxen have claws? yes or no? Do pigs have claws? yes or no?
Asking this question ad infinitum is not going to advance your cause. It's a red herring and you are using it as a straw man argument to win some desperately needed credibility.
You are ultimately trying to say that the pig escapes the specific prohibitions found in 6146 and was permissible for the Jews according to you. You make this error because you believe it to be an exhaustive list.
I have demonstrated for you irrefutably that blood also escapes the same criteria and by your very same logic was thus permissible to the Jews.
Your red herring is irrelevant when you understand this fact.
Do oxen, sheep and other animals have blood?
You ask the wrong question. The question is...were the oxen and sheep, in their entirety...haram to the Jews.
No.
The real thing is that if the fat, and highly specific and detailed prohibitions about just the fat of these animals are specified then the same would have been true of blood if that was forbidden.
Failing to find a prohibition against blood here, then by your false logic it must have been permissible to the Jews.
Are you still denying this undeniable result of your falsehood?
According to your false logic, because the blood of animals is not mentioned in this crucial verse for your argument, then it MUST be permissible.
The ayat, once again, is talking about what animals, whether in whole or or part, were made haram to the Jews. Stay focused, thanks.
Hang on. Stop being boorish with focused (sic) comments.
You were insisting that the verse was about specific animal species and I corrected you on that.
Once again, 6146 mentions details on prohibitions to the Jews in punishment of their ways. It does not deal with specific animals or parts of animals.
The ayat and I, if you would pay attention, are talking about what ANIMALS IN THEIR ENTIRETY and what ANIMAL PARTS, DEFINITIVELY, were made haram to the JEWS, before the coming of Al-Quran. So, is the pig represented in either of those two categories...yes or no? lol
Is blood of any animal represented as forbidden in that verse?
You did not answer my question, please do. It is critical to your gaining the proper understanding in this matter.
You're still groping for the straw man here. Let go of it.
Therefore it matters not what was forbidden to the Jews in 6146 from which we can derive no benefit or any conclusions. I have shown you this with the example of blood also escaping prohibition from that verse.
LOL!!! If it doesn't matter what was made haram to the Jews, then Allah simply wasted His time with ayat 6146. LOL! my God are you ever desperate!
This shows your facile stance. Do you apply the same reasoning - "Allah simply wasted His time with ayat...." to anything that is shown not to support your twisted understanding?
6146 may not include a pig, and by the same token it certainly does not include a prohibition on blood (or carrion).
So attempting to use 6146 to define the entire dietary restrictions of Jews is futile.
It's futile because it does not help you define what is restricted for people now. You cannot say 6146 exludes the pig and therefore because the food of Jews is OK for us, then the pig is permissible (ie. using 55 to justify this).
The reason you cannot do so is that blood is also thereby permissible.
Therefore your logic is false.
Why is it false? Because we know that despite blood not coming under the prohibition of 6146 it is forbidden to us because the God prohibits it.
Where does He prohibit it? In 6145.
And so what of the pig? The same. 6145 prohibits it.
Do you see why your questions are immaterial now?
Your desire to use 6146 through 55 to springboard pig onto our dinnerplates is therefore false logic. The key is 6145 which puts into place the reading's prohibition on food. In that verse you find blood, carrion and the flesh of pigs forbidden to the reasonable person. Your roundabout logic of 6146 being exhaustive to 55 etc. is not only false but ultimately irrelevant.
LOL!, yeah, right. Anyway..do pigs have claws..yes or no? If not, then your erroneous position crumbles before you, because if pigs don't have claws, YOU HAVE NO WAY OF DECLARING/PROVING THAT IT IS HARAM FOR FOOD, end of story. lol You'rE done, truth...accept it. wink
Still finding it hard to accept your false logic?
No matter. Your stubbornness in the matter despite clear proof being shown to you shows your character well. You're clutching hard to an irrelevancy hoping you can steer people in the wrong direction.
I have taken enough time to show your false logic and if you cannot understand it still, then I can do nothing more.
Peace to you.
-
PEACE, IDMKHIZIR.
Khi- Salam. As "truth" remarked WHAT ABOUT BLOOD THEN? GOD didnt mention that prohibition for the Jews either in 6146 nor anywhere else in the Quran. But he did prohibit blood in the Quran didnt he? Or do you interpret "ad-damm" to mean something else now as well? Is blood halal too according to you since GOD in the Quran doesnt mention it to have been forbidden for the people of the book? Do you see now that your argument doesnt hold up to scrutiny? GOD Bless!
What you and truth aren't understanding is this..."blood", is not a species of animal. You cannot equate blood and animal. Ayat 6146 is speaking about animals. Allah, definitively, made haram ALL animals with claws haram to the Jews prior to Al-Quran. Pigs don't have claws, hence, they could not have been one of the haram animals to the Jews. Do you accept this fact? yes or no? If you do accept this fact, then ayat 55 makes the use of the pig for food halal, because it was not haram to those who came before Al-Quran in the first, hence, it is halal for those who came after Al-Quran. Ayat 16116, makes it haram to make something haram which Allah didn't. I cannot simplify this concept any further.
-
Out of topic The Quran forbids piggies to be eaten, but can you still touch it?
Khi- Salam. The prohibition lies in eating the pig meat. The following verse makes this clear
Say, "I do not find in the revelations given to me any FOOD(ta'am) 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.
So yes you can touch it. It is NOT ritually unclean or whatsoever like most traditional "Muslims" believe. GOD Bless! -
What you and truth aren't understanding is this..."blood", is not a species of animal. You cannot equate blood and animal. Ayat 6146 is speaking about animals. Allah, definitively, made haram ALL animals with claws haram to the Jews prior to Al-Quran. Pigs don't have claws, hence, they could not have been one of the haram animals to the Jews. Do you accept this fact? yes or no? If you do accept this fact, then ayat 55 makes the use of the pig for food halal, because it was not haram to those who came before Al-Quran in the first, hence, it is halal for those who came after Al-Quran. Ayat 16116, makes it haram to make something haram which Allah didn't. I cannot simplify this concept any further.
Khi- Salam. All i see is you further attempting to seek more and more excuses. We are not equating animals(in this case pigs) with blood. But both of them fall under the category of prohibitions. 6146 speaks about animals and I KNOW PIGS DONT HAVE CLAWS, ok, so what? Where in GOD's name does that verse say that those prohibitions are it and GOD forbade no more to the Jews? That is another question youll have to answer. GOD didnt say in 4146 that He ONLY forbade animals with claws to the Jews, did He? GOD Bless!
-
PBM Fine, no problem, do sheep and oxen have claws? yes or no? Do pigs have claws? yes or no?
Asking this question ad infinitum is not going to advance your cause. It's a red herring and you are using it as a straw man argument to win some desperately needed credibility.
Then why are you afraid to simply answer the question, yes or no? Why do you keep stalling and making excuses why you won't answer it? You don't want to answer, because you know the answer is no and that destroys you un-Quranc position. Who do you think you are fooling? lol
You are ultimately trying to say that the pig escapes the specific prohibitions found in 6146 and was permissible for the Jews
Correct. As pigs do not have claws, they could not have been one of the haram animals.
according to you.
Not according to me, but according to Allah.
You make this error because you believe it to be an exhaustive list.
I've made no error. The ayat, regarding haram animals as food to the Jews, was exhaustive. The pig, not having claws,is without question exempt from that group of animals...kapish?
I have demonstrated for you irrefutably that blood also escapes the same criteria and by your very same logic was thus permissible to the Jews.
The only thing you are demonstrating is that, you are not paying attentin to the ayats under discussion or what is being said to you, for if you were, you would understand the debate is concerning animals which were made haram to the Jews and not blood, feces, hairs, kit kat bars, pepsi cola, or friut loops, got it?
Your red herring is irrelevant when you understand this fact.
If it is such a red herring, then answer the question and shut me up, how's that? But you won't answer my question, will you lol
truth Do oxen, sheep and other animals have blood?
Btw, please stop putting my name to your quotes, pay attention to what you are doing, will you.
PBM You ask the wrong question. The question is...were the oxen and sheep, in their entirety...haram to the Jews.
No.
Well, you've answered that with no problem, now answer the this DO PIGS HAVE CLAWS...yes or no?
The real thing is that if the fat, and highly specific and detailed prohibitions about just the fat of these animals are specified then the same would have been true of blood if that was forbidden. Failing to find a prohibition against blood here, then by your false logic it must have been permissible to the Jews. Are you still denying this undeniable result of your falsehood?
Nope, the real thing is this...fat, like blood, is not an animal, got it? Ayat 6146 tells us that species of ANIMALS--those with claws, were made haram to the Jews. If you are going to claim the pig, as species of animal, was made haram to the Jews, then you must prove this. Now, according to ayat 6146, the pig, as specie of animal, could not be one of the species of animals made haram to the Jews, becuase as a specie of animal...it does not have claws. LOL!!! man, you are so finished. You remind me of boxer, who has been knocked out, yet, while on his back and out cold, he contiues to move his arms in a punching fashion. rotfl
truth;According to your false logic, because the blood of animals is not mentioned in this crucial verse for your argument, then it MUST be permissible.
PBM The ayat, once again, is talking about what animals, whether in whole or or part, were made haram to the Jews. Stay focused, thanks.
Hang on. Stop being boorish with focused (sic) comments.
Stop with the...red herring crap then.
You were insisting that the verse was about specific animal species and I corrected you on that.
You haven't corrected anything. More fantasizing on your part.
Still finding it hard to accept your false logic?
No matter. Your stubbornness in the matter despite clear proof being shown to you shows your character well. You're clutching hard to an irrelevancy hoping you can steer people in the wrong direction.
I have taken enough time to show your false logic and if you cannot understand it still, then I can do nothing more.
Peace to you
.rotfl yeah, right. Man, you are really in a dream world. Anyway..do pigs have claws..yes or no? If not, then your erroneous position crumbles before you, because if pigs don't have claws, YOU HAVE NO WAY OF DECLARING/PROVING THAT IT IS HARAM FOR FOOD, end of story. lol You're done, truth...accept it. wink
Let go of your two gods..SUPERSTITION and CONJECTURE. -
PBMWhat you and truth aren't understanding is this..."blood", is not a species of animal. You cannot equate blood and animal. Ayat 6146 is speaking about animals. Allah, definitively, made haram ALL animals with claws haram to the Jews prior to Al-Quran. Pigs don't have claws, hence, they could not have been one of the haram animals to the Jews. Do you accept this fact? yes or no? If you do accept this fact, then ayat 55 makes the use of the pig for food halal, because it was not haram to those who came before Al-Quran in the first, hence, it is halal for those who came after Al-Quran. Ayat 16116, makes it haram to make something haram which Allah didn't. I cannot simplify this concept any further.
Khi- Salam. All i see is you further attempting to seek more and more excuses. We are not equating animals(in this case pigs) with blood. But both of them fall under the category of prohibitions. 6146 speaks about animals and I KNOW PIGS DONT HAVE CLAWS, ok, so what? Where in GOD's name does that verse say that those prohibitions are it and GOD forbade no more to the Jews? That is another question youll have to answer. GOD didnt say in 4146 that He ONLY forbade animals with claws to the Jews, did He? GOD Bless!
I KNOW PIGS DONT HAVE CLAWS, ok, so what?
Well, I'm pleased to see that you can answer a simple question, thanks. Here's the so what. Specifically, the "things" affectionately referred to as...animals with claws, were made haram to the Jews. The "things" called pigs, obviously, because they don't possess claws, could not be in that that group of haram animals. Do you agree? Yes or no? Now, blood doesn't have claws or hooves nor, is it an animal, thus, ayat 6146, is not discussing blood, because it isn't a---animal. Do you have this very elementary concept down yet? Here it is once more...blood is not an animal, hence, ayat 6146 isn't referring to it, although it too, comes under the rubric of haram things to mankind.
-
Well, I'm pleased to see that you can answer a simple question, thanks. Here's the so what. Specifically, the "things" affectionately referred to as...animals with claws, were made haram to the Jews. The "things" called pigs, obviously, because they don't possess claws, could not be in that that group of haram animals. Do you agree? Yes or no?
Khi- Salam. My answer is yes, so what? I already told you 6146 does NOT necessarily mention ALL the prohibitions to the Jews. It mentions some including animals with claws or according to RKs translation it is "undivided hoofs".
Now, blood doesn't have claws or hooves nor, is it an animal, thus, ayat 6146, is not discussing blood, because it isn't a---animal. Do you have this very elementary concept down yet? Here it is once more...blood is not an animal, hence, ayat 6146 isn't referring to it, although it too, comes under the rubric of haram things to mankind.
Khi- I get it your trying to say 6146 has ALL ANIMAL prohibitions for the Jews in it and that there are NO MORE. But this is where you are WRONG. The verse doesnt say that those are the ONLY animal prohibitons towards the Jews, get it? If they were the verse would have read something like "inamma(only) harama 'ala hoodan..." before the phrase or "ma haramna 'ala hoodan ILLA...(We did not prohibit for the Jews BUT/EXCEPT" but that is not the case. GOD Bless!
-
Well, I'm pleased to see that you can answer a simple question, thanks. Here's the so what. Specifically, the "things" affectionately referred to as...animals with claws, were made haram to the Jews. The "things" called pigs, obviously, because they don't possess claws, could not be in that that group of haram animals. Do you agree? Yes or no?
Khi- Salam. My answer is yes, so what? I already told you 6146 does NOT necessarily mention ALL the prohibitions to the Jews. It mentions some including animals with claws or according to RKs translation it is "undivided hoofs".
No, Idmkhizr, definitively states animals with claws...meaning, any/all animal with claws were haram to the Jews. Now, when you say.."6146 does NOT necessarily mention ALL the prohibitions to the Jews", you are not grasping the point of the ayat. The ayat isn't talking about everything made haram to the Jews, just what ANIMALS were made haram to them. Surely by this time you must understand this, come on, now. RK's translation is wrong, because if was "undivided hoof", then the sheep and the oxen, as with the animals with claws, would have been haram, because sheep and oxen have hooves. Thufr, does not mean hoof--undivided or otherwise, hence, RK's translation is dead wrong.
PBM Now, blood doesn't have claws or hooves nor, is it an animal, thus, ayat 6146, is not discussing blood, because it isn't a---animal. Do you have this very elementary concept down yet? Here it is once more...blood is not an animal, hence, ayat 6146 isn't referring to it, although it too, comes under the rubric of haram things to mankind.
Khi- I get it your trying to say 6146 has ALL ANIMAL prohibitions for the Jews in it and that there are NO MORE. But this is where you are WRONG. The verse doesnt say that those are the ONLY animal prohibitons towards the Jews, get it?
Do you know, by way of Al-Quran, what, if any, other animals, outside of those with claws, were made haram to the Jews? If so, please name them, thanks. If you don't know, then you cannot, per ayats 733, 1736, nd 16116, pass of your conjecture as Quranic truth and, that other animals were haram.
-
SaLaM
Out of topic The Quran forbids piggies to be eaten, but can you still touch it?
I worked as a butcher for one year. During that time, i came across about 60 different types of hams. Quran does not forbids me working at a job where i deal with ham, i.e butcher. That would be the hadith. Infact, i got into an argument over this with a sunni at my work place coz he thought i was taking the mickey out the hadiths. I dont think he took it well when i told him that i WAS. looooll
-
RK's translation is wrong, because if was "undivided hoof", then the sheep and the oxen, as with the animals with claws, would have been haram, because sheep and oxen have hooves.
Khi- Salam. Sheep and oxen have hoofs but they are DIVIDED/SPLIT NOT undivided so even according to RKs translation theres no problem since sheep and oxen wont fall under that category.
Do you know, by way of Al-Quran, what, if any, other animals, outside of those with claws, were made haram to the Jews? If so, please name them, thanks. If you don't know, then you cannot, per ayats 733, 1736, nd 16116, pass of your conjecture as Quranic truth and, that other animals were haram.
Khi- Now weve come to the point. My answer is, no, in the Quran i dont find anymore animal prohibitions for the Jews outside those of claws/unidivide hoofs BUT does that mean there were no more??? Does the Quran really say that it contains all of the animal prohibitions towards the Jews? Does it make such a claim? I can assure you it does NOT, so your point is still NOT proven in any way. GOD Bless!
-
PBM Fine, no problem, do sheep and oxen have claws? yes or no? Do pigs have claws? yes or no?
Asking this question ad infinitum is not going to advance your cause. It's a red herring and you are using it as a straw man argument to win some desperately needed credibility.
Then why are you afraid to simply answer the question, yes or no? Why do you keep stalling and making excuses why you won't answer it? You don't want to answer, because you know the answer is no and that destroys you un-Quranc position. Who do you think you are fooling? lol
You're still clutching at straws.
You are ultimately trying to say that the pig escapes the specific prohibitions found in 6146 and was permissible for the Jews
Correct. As pigs do not have claws, they could not have been one of the haram animals.
Can you see that your question is settled there?
It's irrelevant.
according to you.
Not according to me, but according to Allah.
You make this error because you believe it to be an exhaustive list.
I've made no error. The ayat, regarding haram animals as food to the Jews, was exhaustive. The pig, not having claws,is without question exempt from that group of animals...kapish?
And therefore your point is that the Jews ate pigs. That's what you're belabouring.
And I am repeating to you that your false logic means the Jews were also eating blood and carrion because your imagined exhaustive list in 6146 does not contain them.
That is what you are having trouble swallowing.
I have demonstrated for you irrefutably that blood also escapes the same criteria and by your very same logic was thus permissible to the Jews.
The only thing you are demonstrating is that, you are not paying attentin to the ayats under discussion or what is being said to you, for if you were, you would understand the debate is concerning animals which were made haram to the Jews and not blood, feces, hairs, kit kat bars, pepsi cola, or friut loops, got it?
No.
Stop your sidestepping and deception here.
I've already shown you that the verse does not just mention animals, but parts of animals. It goes into great detail, indeed more detail about just FAT than it does about animals. This is what defeats your argument and yet you still clutch at straws.
Your red herring is irrelevant when you understand this fact.
If it is such a red herring, then answer the question and shut me up, how's that? But you won't answer my question, will you lol
If you were a reasonable person you would have seen that your argument is false. That a counterexample completely demolishes it.
You know it, but you are still in denial. No matter you can stay in your denial, perhaps its better that way because ultimately you'll have to answer for it.
My writing is for the reasonable people. Yet you try to bury all the logic into rubbish to and fro arguments.
truth Do oxen, sheep and other animals have blood?
Btw, please stop putting my name to your quotes, pay attention to what you are doing, will you.
Petulance again and again.
The real thing is that if the fat, and highly specific and detailed prohibitions about just the fat of these animals are specified then the same would have been true of blood if that was forbidden. Failing to find a prohibition against blood here, then by your false logic it must have been permissible to the Jews. Are you still denying this undeniable result of your falsehood?
Nope, the real thing is this...fat, like blood, is not an animal, got it? Ayat 6146 tells us that species of ANIMALS--those with claws, were made haram to the Jews. If you are going to claim the pig, as species of animal, was made haram to the Jews, then you must prove this.
Take a break for a moment. No one even cares at this point what was forbidden to the Jews. It is your logic that is completely false.
You're clutching at your only desperate point.
You're creating a straw man here. No one is trying to prove that pigs were forbidden to the Jews. I'm demonstrating to you that by YOUR logic carrion and blood were also not forbidden.
And that is sufficient to refute you utterly.
Now, according to ayat 6146, the pig, as specie of animal, could not be one of the species of animals made haram to the Jews, becuase as a specie of animal...it does not have claws. LOL!!! man, you are so finished. You remind me of boxer, who has been knocked out, yet, while on his back and out cold, he contiues to move his arms in a punching fashion. rotfl
Ad hominem garbage and funnily enough describes you better than it does anyone else.
You were insisting that the verse was about specific animal species and I corrected you on that.
You haven't corrected anything. More fantasizing on your part.
Still finding it hard to accept your false logic?
No matter. Your stubbornness in the matter despite clear proof being shown to you shows your character well. You're clutching hard to an irrelevancy hoping you can steer people in the wrong direction.
I have taken enough time to show your false logic and if you cannot understand it still, then I can do nothing more.
Peace to you
.rotfl yeah, right. Man, you are really in a dream world. Anyway..do pigs have claws..yes or no? If not, then your erroneous position crumbles before you, because if pigs don't have claws, YOU HAVE NO WAY OF DECLARING/PROVING THAT IT IS HARAM FOR FOOD, end of story. lol You're done, truth...accept it. wink
Let go of your two gods..SUPERSTITION and CONJECTURE.More ad hominem. Do you remember that insults are the last resort of the out argued?
Your arguments are foam. Completely irrelevant and pointless. The posts above are sufficient to show the foam for what it is.
Peace/
-
Salam PBM,
LOL!!! If it doesn't matter what was made haram to the Jews, then Allah simply wasted His time with ayat 6146. LOL! my God are you ever desperate!
Khi- Salam. As "truth" remarked WHAT ABOUT BLOOD THEN? GOD didnt mention that prohibition for the Jews either in 6146 nor anywhere else in the Quran. But he did prohibit blood in the Quran didnt he? Or do you interpret "ad-damm" to mean something else now as well? Is blood halal too according to you since GOD in the Quran doesnt mention it to have been forbidden for the people of the book? Do you see now that your argument doesnt hold up to scrutiny? GOD Bless!
Dear Khizar,
It is apparent that PRIEST_BOKMEI/DHULQARNANE is in denial of this very easy to understand fact shown him.
His logic has been utterly demolished and he is still grasping at straws thinking that they are keeping him afloat.
I suspect he'll quietly drop this issue in due course as any reasonable person would, as there is only so much one can hold onto falsehood and foam.
Peace.
-
But then Quran refines and superseeds previous scriptures. ? What can you say then about the verse forbidding swine?
Dear Vizard,
This is the point that PRIEST_BOKMEI now DHULQARNANE is attempting to sidestep.
This "beating around the bush", "entering a house through the backdoor" approach that he is belabouring to push down people's throats (and which has been shown to be false) is to avoid the clear prohibition in 6145.
PBDQ is of the opinion that "lahmu khinzir" is not "pig flesh", but rather "things I find disagreeable". This is based on his attempt to create a new Arabic grammar that is completely novel and based on nothing but his own conjecture.
Not only that but idmkhizar has provided a nice refutation to that - that if this were indeed true - ie. that "lahmu khinzir" was a subjective thing where people made decisions on what was forbidden then they are thus prohibiting what the God has not (a grave mistake).
It's all foam; and this thread is appropriately called the conclusion of the swine debate.
Peace.