CONCLUSION OF THE SWINE DEBATE
-
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.
-
Here it is in simple terms. Your basic premise was...
My basic premise is this pigs do not have claws, hence, the animals made haram to the Jews, could NOT have included them. So, I ask you once again...do pigs have claws, yes or no? How long will you continue to make yourself look bad by not answering this question directly. Avoiding it only proves to all that you are concealing something.
PBM 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
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.
Correct.
You are firstly making the logical fallacy of believing 6146 to be an exhaustive statement in relation to the dietary restrictions on Jews.
How do you know it is not exhaustive in regard to haram animals? Do you know a fact that it is not? Allah, in 6146, without any doubt about it, DEFINITIVELY, makes an entire species of animal, those with claws and the fat of two hooved animals--sheep and oxen, haram to the Jews. Do you dispute this?...yes or no?
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?
That's because ayat 6146 is dealing with species of animals. Is carrion a specie of animal?
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.
4160 Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah's way.
Are humans and feces species of animals named in ayat 6146 or are animals with claws, sheep and oxen mentioned? STAY FOCUSED. Where the eating of humans and feces once halal to the Jews and then, per ayat 4160, Allah made it haram for them to eat these things? The more you comment, the sillier you present yourself. You need to quit before
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.
rotfl hysterically...you've got to be kidding me, right? rotfl
Again
-
Will your analogy and latest comments make pigs have claws?, if not, then your analogy and comments are irrelevent and they fail. 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.
-
-
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.
Correct.
You are firstly making the logical fallacy of believing 6146 to be an exhaustive statement in relation to the dietary restrictions on Jews.
How do you know it is not exhaustive in regard to haram animals? Do you know a fact that it is not? Allah, in 6146, without any doubt about it, DEFINITIVELY, makes an entire species of animal, those with claws and the fat of two hooved animals--sheep and oxen, haram to the Jews. Do you dispute this?...yes or no?
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?
That's because ayat 6146 is dealing with species of animals. Is carrion a specie of animal?
You're talking rubbish and distorting the plain facts again and being deceptive.
Verse 6146 does not deal with species of animals; it deals with what was forbidden to Jews as punishment.
It talks not only about animals but about parts of animals - namely the fat of sheep and cattle as well.
Therefore if this is an exhaustive list as you assume it to be, then blood was permissible according to you, because the list should have mentioned the blood of animals - just as it mentions the fat of certain animals being forbidden.
Therefore blood is permissible according to your false logic. But we know it is not hence your argument fails.
You can't have it both ways.
So the falsehood of your logic stands and your argument is refuted.
-
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?
Therefore if this is an exhaustive list as you assume it to be, then blood was permissible according to you, because the list should have mentioned the blood of animals - just as it mentions the fat of certain animals being forbidden.
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
So the falsehood of your logic stands and your argument is refuted.
rotfl back to fantasizing again, eh?
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4341
-
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.