Alkhineer is a noun in the light of the Reading

marie

Salam Ali Omar, Danish, all,

The aw indicates same conditional aspects before and after the word. I.e.

I disagree with your understanding.

443 mentions various specific conditions you are in.

The four cases enumerated in 443 concern each of us like the prohibited foods (6145) concern each eater. The difference between these two verses is that in the condition "illa an yakoon/except that it be" in 6145, yakoona refers to the prohibited food. And the conditionin 443 "wa-in kuntum /And if you are", kuntum refers to us.

The four cases enumerated in 443 are not similar; does ill = travelling, does "you has excreted feces" = "you had sexual contact with the women"...etc ?.
The common point between the prohibited food (6145) is each of these prohibited food is unpure for one eater (rijsun). And the common point between the four cases in 443 is that they are not pure to abserve the salat ).

The common condition between " ill or traveling, or one of you has excreted feces, or you had sexual contact with the women" is "and could not find water then you shall make ablution with clean soil by wiping your faces and hands".

Aw/or (6145) is similar than wa/and (16115, 2173).

Say I do not find in what is inspired to me forbidden to a one eater to eat except that it be already dead, or running blood, or the meat of pig, it"the prohibited food" is foul/unhealthy/unpure; or what is corruptly dedicated to other than God. Whoever is forced without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.

Qul la ajidu feema oohiyailayya muharraman AAala taAAimin yatAAamuhu illa an yakoona maytatan aw daman masfoohan aw lahma khinzeerin fa-innahu rijsun aw fisqan ohilla lighayri Allahibihi famani idturra ghayra baghin wala AAadinfa-inna rabbaka ghafoorun raheemun

O you who believe, do not come near the contact-method while you are drunk, until you know what you are saying. Nor dirty, except if travelling, until you wash. And if you are ill or traveling, or one of you has excreted feces, or you had sexual contact with the women, and could not find water then you shall make ablution with clean soil by wiping your faces and hands. God is Pardoning, Forgiving.

Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoola taqraboo alssalata waantum sukarahatta taAAlamoo ma taqooloona walajunuban illa AAabiree sabeelin hattataghtasiloo wa-in kuntum marda aw AAala safarin awjaa ahadun minkum mina algha-iti aw lamastumualnnisaa falam tajidoo maan fatayammamoo saAAeedantayyiban faimsahoo biwujoohikum waaydeekuminna Allaha kana AAafuwwan ghafooran

589 mentions specific actions you do.

That proves anything.
Are these actions similar ?
Does free a slave = feeding of ten poor?

1331 mentions specific actions by means of the quran.

Are these actions similar?
Does the dead were spoken to with it = to slice the Earth?

1790-93 mention specific conditions to render you above others.

same question.

Before drawing any conclusion about the meaning of khinzeer (6145), please do consider the whole occurences of this word and the whole Reading (see my first post).

Thanks

Salam

unknownuser

PEACE, MARIE,

While you, without a doubt, have a strong foundation in the grammar, it appears that Grouself, Danish, and Ali Omar have renedered the proper grammatical understanding of "aw". I say this, because it is consistent with lahma khinzeerin meaning ill-seeming/that which I see as a bad--a condition. This understanding is also consistent ayats 4160, 55, 2228, and 6146, in that, both explanations support each other in that the pig is not haram. Your understanding of "aw", which sounds reasonable, still does not render the answer to the most important question relative to your assertion that the pig is haram--"why" is the pig, according to Allah, haram? Both you and mquran, have admitted that the pig, by nature/in and of itself, is not rijsun, yet, you continue to claim that it is rijsun for the eater to eat. You, murqan, S. Carrot, Tanveer, JM, and others make these claims in Allah's name, all the while knowing that, you don't know why it is rijsun for the eater to eat thus haram. I really think if you people would really think hard about the following ayats that, out of good conscience, you will step back from your assertions

733 Say the things that my Lord has indeed made haram are shameful deeds...and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge.

1736 And do not pursue/follow that of which you have no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning).

In that, you and your supporters cannot, by way of Al-Quran, explain why the pig is rijsun for the eater to eat, puts you all in direct opposition to the above two ayats. How will you people answer Allah when He questions you on this matter, in light of the fact that, He told you not to pursue/follow something which you have no certitude of. And, it is quite clear that you have no certitude as to why, according to you and your supporters, that the pig is rijsun for the eater to eat. Does this fact give you any pause for concern at all?

Looking forward to your reply.

Ali_Omar

Dear Danish,

I am probably not visiting this site often enough.

Yes you are right; seems like we are actually talking about the same thing. ?

Thank you for your info.

Regds

Ali Omar

Ali_Omar

Dear Marie,

Your comments now concerns reason, and I feel more on firm ground here than I do with grammar.

Does free a slave = feeding of ten poor?

Does the dead were spoken to with it = to slice the Earth?

May I ask, in addition?

Does running blood = that which is already dead?

You see, it is not a question of equality in the matter itself; it is a question of similarity in a certain aspect.

589 ..... feeding of ten poor from the average of what you feed your family, or that you clothe them, or that you free a slave

This means that God see your specific actions here similar to one another in this particular aspect. All actions and objects are specific, none are in general terms. It says ?slave?, not just any humans, it says ?ten poor? not just any humans.

1331 And if a Quran were to be used to move mountains, or to slice the Earth, or the dead were spoken to with it.

Here also, God mentions certain specific actions similar to one another in this particular aspect. All actions and objects are specific, none are in general terms. It says ?mountains? not just any object, it says ?Earth? not just any object, it says ?the dead? not just any object.

6.145 Say ?I do not find in what is inspired to me forbidden to a one eater to eat except that it be already dead, or running blood, or the meat of pig, it"the prohibited food" is foul/unhealthy/unpure; or what is corruptly dedicated to other than God.? Whoever is forced without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.

Here God mentions a few objects in general terms that are similar to on another in this particular aspect. Action is specific but all objects are in general, no specific terms. It says ?that which is already dead? meaning any creature that is already dead, it says ?running blood? meaning blood from any creature, it says ?food dedicated to other than God? meaning any creature or others dedicated to God.
If God said ?and the pig? it would not be just any creature it would be a specific type of creature, and the terms therefore not in harmony with each other as in the other cases.

Regds

Ali Omar

unknownuser

PEACE, ALI OMAR and ALL,

Here God mentions a few objects in general terms that are similar to on another in this particular aspect. Action is specific but all objects are in general, no specific terms. It says ?that which is already dead? meaning any creature that is already dead, it says ?running blood? meaning blood from any creature, it says ?food dedicated to other than God? meaning any creature or others dedicated to God. If God said ?and the pig? it would not be just any creature it would be a specific type of creature, and the terms therefore not in harmony with each other as in the other cases.

A fine point Ali, and why the the animal pig is not being discussed in various ayats cited. Marie, obviously, as with SC, Tanveer and mquran, are all highly intelligent people, so why, despite all of the concrete irrefutable evidence why lahma khinzerin cannot mean the pig, do these people continue to subscribe to the notion that it is? The only think I can up with is, this is an example of the power of prejudice and how it can generate and energize denial and superstition. The pig has been maligned for so many centuries within the so-called Muslim and Jewish world that, even in the face of so much evidence that it is not guilty as charged, many still cannot/won't accept it. Prejudice, then, at this point, is the motive force behind Marie's and the others denial of the evidence and subsequent superstitious position..

Peace.

jonny_k

PEACE, ALI OMAR and ALL,

Here God mentions a few objects in general terms that are similar to on another in this particular aspect. Action is specific but all objects are in general, no specific terms. It says ?that which is already dead? meaning any creature that is already dead, it says ?running blood? meaning blood from any creature, it says ?food dedicated to other than God? meaning any creature or others dedicated to God. If God said ?and the pig? it would not be just any creature it would be a specific type of creature, and the terms therefore not in harmony with each other as in the other cases.

A fine point Ali, and why the the animal pig is not being discussed in various ayats cited. Marie, obviously, as with SC, Tanveer and mquran, are all highly intelligent people, so why, despite all of the concrete irrefutable evidence why lahma khinzerin cannot mean the pig, do these people continue to subscribe to the notion that it is? The only think I can up with is, this is an example of the power of prejudice and how it can generate and energize denial and superstition. The pig has been maligned for so many centuries within the so-called Muslim and Jewish world that, even in the face of so much evidence is not is not guilty as charged, many still cannot/won't accept it. Prejudice, then, at this point, is the motive force behind Marie's and the others denial of the evidence and subsequent superstitious position..

Peace.

Khi- Salam. The word "khinzeer" has always been used by Arabs to mean "pig/swine" and is still used to mean so. If you claim that it doesnt youll have to provide evidence that "khinzeer" wasnt used for the pig before the rev. of the Quran. If you claim "lahmul khinzeer" means "bad meat" then let me tell you that swine is bad meat by its very nature. It contains "sutoxin", a chemical which ruins the bones with age, thus being SLOW POISON. Also the swine is an animal which rolls itself in its own dirt. It has one of the strongest immune systems and thus accumulates many harmful diseases which are harmless for its own body. The dangers of pork meat are often hid from the media as it would ruin the meat market. Just type in "dangers of pork" in yahoo or google. And YES, it's ONLY THE FLESH of SWINE which contains these ill features and ofcourse the blood just like the Quran says. Pork also conatins much more saturated fats than other animals thus highly increasing the risk of heart diseases. GOD Bless!

unknownuser

PEACE, IDMKHIZAR,

The word "khinzeer" has always been used by Arabs to mean "pig/swine" and is still used to mean so. If you claim that it doesnt youll have to provide evidence that "khinzeer" wasnt used for the pig before the rev. of the Quran.

This is not the issue. I've stated at least 7 times now that khinzeer, in the Arabic language, means pig, however, khinzeer, in the Arabic language, also means--"that which I see as bad/ill-seeming". The question which arise is--which definition does Allah use in His Quran. It cannot mean the animal pig, because ayats 4160, 51, 55, and 6146 rejects any such notion.

If you claim "lahmul khinzeer" means "bad meat" then let me tell you that swine is bad meat by its very nature. It contains "sutoxin", a chemical which ruins the bones with age, thus being SLOW POISON. Also the swine is an animal which rolls itself in its own dirt. It has one of the strongest immune systems and thus accumulates many harmful diseases which are harmless for its own body. The dangers of pork meat are often hid from the media as it would ruin the meat market. Just type in "dangers of pork" in yahoo or google. And YES, it's ONLY THE FLESH of SWINE which contains these ill features and ofcourse the blood just like the Quran says. Pork also conatins much more saturated fats than other animals thus highly increasing the risk of heart diseases.

If this were the case, why then, are billions of people today (and in the past) eating the pig with no health problems at all? Your response does not hold up to the actual evidence. Please read Danish's posts concerning the so-called health issues of the pig (click on to his name under "profile" and read his comments).

Peace.

marie

Salam Ali Omar,

You see, it is not a question of equality in the matter itself; it is a question of similarity in a certain aspect.

Your view about the similarity is purely subjective and the Reading doesn't support it.

Here God mentions a few objects in general terms that are similar to on another in this particular aspect. Action is specific but all objects are in general, no specific terms. It says that which is already dead meaning any creature that is already dead, it says running blood meaning blood from any creature, it says food dedicated to other than God meaning any creature or others dedicated to God.
If God said and the pig it would not be just any creature it would be a specific type of creature, and the terms therefore not in harmony with each other as in the other cases.

Purely subjective. The criterion is inside the Reading itself.

The common point is clearly stated in 6145, both these prohibited food are unpure for the eater.
The God used Aw/or (6145) and wa/and (16115, 2173) interchangeably to enumerate these prohibited foods.

As I stated before, you cannot draw any interpretation based only on one verse. To get a full picture, you should to consider the whole Reading and all arguments based only on the Reading and not guessing work.

By the way, I find it more interesting to look at dangers of meat than dangers of pork on the Internet.

FM
51. O you who believe, honour your contracts. Made lawful for you are all the animals of the livestock, except that which is being recited to you, and what you are not allowed to hunt of the game while you are under restriction. God decrees as He pleases.

A. Shabir
51 O You who have chosen to be graced with belief! Fulfill your pledges and obligations. Permitted for you is the flesh of every beast that eats plants, except what is specifically forbidden in the Book. Allah has ordained that all hunting is prohibited during Hajj. Verily, Allah Ordains as He deems fit.

The criterion concerning the animals of the livestock is also given in the Reading (6142-6144)

Just after, the God specifies what is specifically forbidden from the animals of the livestock (baheematu al-anAAami) which is lahm alkhinzeer (6145, 16115, 2173).

Regards

unknownuser

PEACE, MARIE,

You continue to ignore the evidence. Al-Quran totally supports his analysis, because if lahma khinzeer was/is referring to a species of animal and is unpure for the eater to eat, when then, are you going to provide the concrete Quranic evidence as to WHY it's unpure for the eater to eat? You have yet to do this and, until you do, you are only conjecturing/saying things of Allah of which you have no knowledge/certitude.

You can go back forth about the actual meaning of "aw" (demonstrating that their is doubt in your position), however, to date, neither you nor your supporters, have explained away why--when ayats 4160, 55, 6146, and 16116 are taken together, they totally obliterate any such notion that the pig is haram. When are you going to explain those ayats away? These ayats are CONCLUSIVE as opposed to "aw" argument which is not.

Ayat 51 says...animals, plural, are haram and not an animal from among among the animals ( will you stop twisting stuff, my God?), so, what are the other haram animals which are unpure for the eater to eat? I hope you will also keep in mind that, lahma khinzeer, if one wishes to argue that it is referring to the animal pig, isn't referring to the entire pig, but only its flesh, hence, your interpretation that it means the pig in its entirety contradicts how Allah specifies things. When Allah, per ayat 6146, made an entire species of animals haram, those with claws, and a specific part of others, the fat, nowhere has Allah made this distinction with the pig. Lahma Khinzeer does not equal the entire animal, yet, ayat 51, is referring to animals in their entirety and not their parts, hence, the pig cannot be what is being discussed in that ayat 51.

The part which says..."eats plants", is an EXTRAPOLATION/CONJECTURE on the part of Shabbir or whoever ([please post the dictionary which defines beasts as those who only plants, please.), and is an attempt to explain away ayats 4160, 55, and 6146. He, of course, as with you, fails to do this. He and you, because of your Judeo-Christian indoctrination, per ayat 51, did exactly what Yusef Ali, due to his Judeo-Christian indoctrination, did with the following ayat

6146 For those who followed the Jewish Law, We forbade every (animal) with undivided hoof, 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).

Thufr, does not mean undivided hoof, but claw. None of the definitions I have in Arabic define thufr as hoof, for if it did, then that would mean that sheep amd oxen, along with their fat, would have been haram, because those animals have hooves as does the pig.

Hopefully, you will at last provide your irrefutable evidence why the pig, according to your logic, is haram. Also, when are you going to take ayats 4160, 55, and 6146, on their own, and explain them away? Your "aw" and "ruminants" arguments are inadequate to this task. Let's see you prove how the pig can be haram based on those ayats. Of course you will continue to ignore the aforementioned two questions, because there is simply no way that you can do it, hence, the absolute disengenuousness of your continuing to assert that pig is haram, based on your other misunderstanding of "aw". Is this proof soon forthcoming or what? Please respect the following ayat

2124 Or have they taken for worship (other) gods besides him? Say, "Bring your convincing proof this is the Message of those with me and the Message of those before me." But most of them know not the Truth, and so turn away.

Looking forward to your reply.

jonny_k

This is not the issue. I've stated at least 7 times now that khinzeer, in the Arabic language, means pig, however, khinzeer, in the Arabic language, also means--"that which I see as bad/ill-seeming". The question which arise is--which definition does Allah use in His Quran. It cannot mean the animal pig, because ayats 4160, 51, 55, and 6146 rejects any such notion.

Khi- Salam. Well isnt pig meat "that which I see as bad/ill-seeming"? It is part of it so while other bad seeming animals cld also be included, pig is also. As for the verses quoted above i should remind you "pig meat is BY NO MEANS good food"!!!

If this were the case, why then, are billions of people today (and in the past) eating the pig with no health problems at all? Your response does not hold up to the actual evidence. Please read Danish's posts concerning the so-called health issues of the pig (click on to his name under "profile" and read his comments).

Khi- This is not correct. How can you say this when it's a proven fact pig meat greatly increases heart disease because of saturated fat? You are welcome to search the net for articles. Then there are adfditonal parasites like the trichinea found in that meat but even if removed the sutoxin remains a slow poison. Also as i said the pig is one of the most dirty animals on the earth. The meat conatins all kinds of harmful diseases and germs which even when cooked do not necessarily disappear completely. There are even many people in the world who eat dogs and do not have health problems but this doies not automatically mean that the meat is healthy. GOD Bless!

unknownuser

Peace be upon yuo all,

Why is rat meat not prohibited?

Or poisouness snake?

unknownuser

PEACE, IMDKHIZAR,

Khi- Salam. Well isnt pig meat "that which I see as bad/ill-seeming"? It is part of it so while other bad seeming animals cld also be included, pig is also. As for the verses quoted above i should remind you "pig meat is BY NO MEANS good food"!!!

The ayat has been erroneously translated as meat of pig, hence, your confusion. Tell you what, examine the folowing ayats and then tell me how it is possible that pig is haram, thanks

4160 For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from Allah's Way;-

51 O ye who believe! fulfil (all) obligations. Lawful unto you (for food) are all four-footed animals, with the exceptions named But animals of the chase are forbidden while ye are in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb for Allah doth command according to His will and plan.

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.

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).

PBM If this were the case, why then, are billions of people today (and in the past) eating the pig with no health problems at all? Your response does not hold up to the actual evidence. Please read Danish's posts concerning the so-called health issues of the pig (click on to his name under "profile" and read his comments).

Khi- This is not correct. How can you say this when it's a proven fact pig meat greatly increases heart disease because of saturated fat? You are welcome to search the net for articles.

Butter, and red meats in general, also have the same issues. So what?

Then there are adfditonal parasites like the trichinea found in that meat but even if removed the sutoxin remains a slow poison.

I work in hospital for the past 20 years and not once was anybody admitted for trichinosis. Tell, me how many reported case of trichinosis have been reported in the U.S.? Beef can also become infected with the trichinella worm, hence, your claim that trichinosis is why the pig is haram, is a canard.

Also as i said the pig is one of the most dirty animals on the earth.

Yeah...as YOU say, but not science and experience.

The meat conatins all kinds of harmful diseases and germs which even when cooked do not necessarily disappear completely. There are even many people in the world who eat dogs and do not have health problems but this doies not automatically mean that the meat is healthy. GOD Bless!

As Idol pointed out, why aren't rats haram? What is more filthy than them? You have not proven your assertion.

Ali_Omar

Dear Marie,

I fully agree with you that there are no coincidences in the quran, therefore we should take care in understanding it.
It may well be that I jump to conclusions, but I try to keep an open mind and to see things from all angles. Therefore any thoughts not in conformity with my own opinions, at any one time, are welcomed. D

6.145 can be read such that all the food mentioned are ?impure for the eater?.

Now, looking carefully at the text it shows that the first thing mentioned is ?carrion?. This is understandably something to avoid, as we do not know whether the animal died from a disease or, due to an illness, died from other causes.
A sick animal could be weak, and thereby an easy target for carnivorous animals. It could more easily be prone to accidents, and so on. Anyway, it died due to reasons outside of our control.
Prohibition is understandable on the grounds that it could be a health risk.

Concerning blood, it says ?blood that pours out?, meaning it is running or flowing. Compare this to ?running water?. When you drink running water you drink directly from the source, you don?t put it in a container and/or treat it in any way, because than it is not ?running? water any more.
Concerning blood it is probably the same way, meaning blood directly from the source, i.e. raw blood, not cooked, fried or treated in any way, because than it would no longer be ?pouring? blood.shock
Fresh blood directly from the source would contain any unclean matters, bacteria, etc. contained in the animal.
Prohibition is understandable on the grounds that it could be a health risk.

Concerning ?khinzeerin?, no conditions are mentioned, so that ?khinzeerin? is always bad for us, no matter what.
If this is pointing to ?pork? it means that in whatever way we treat the flesh it is bad for us.
The most common problem in meats from omnivorous animals is the ?trichinosis?. But, this is not dangerous for us if the meat is treated properly. I.e. thoroughly cooked or fried.
In fact, trichinosis are completely wiped out at cooking temperatures higher than 150F(65C), or frozen at -22F(-30C) for 25 hours or -5F(-20C) for 25 days.
But, as someone said ?If you are not sure, then freeze the pork in -22F(-30C) for a month, cook it at 170F(77C) for two hours, throw away the inedible dried out rib and eat a salad instead.? lol
Prohibition is not understandable on the grounds that it could be a health risk.

However, any raw meat, undercooked meat, or meat that is contaminated in any way, could mean a health risk to us, and the prohibition is understandable.

If someone tells you "Do not listen to Jews or Muslims or bishops or Buddhists or Hindus."
Don?t the bishops seem a bit out of place in the picture? It goes ?general?, ?general?, ?specific?, ?general?, ?general?.

Same goes for ?khinzeerin? if it means one specific type of animal. It is just out of place. ?

Maybe, like you say, my views are subjective, and I would gladly change them, but only on grounds of reason, not because someone says so.
Therefore please convince me.

Regards

Ali

marie

Salam Ali Omar,

Concerning khinzeerin, no conditions are mentioned, so that khinzeerin is always bad for us, no matter what.

Can I ask you a favour?
There is no need to pronouce the vowel at the end of the word khinzeer lol There is only khinzeer (6145) or alkhinzeer (16115, 2173) with the article (AL) called alif attaAAreef in arabic like baqar (cattle) or albaqar (the cattle).

The most common problem in meats from omnivorous animals is the trichinosis. But, this is not dangerous for us if the meat is treated properly. I.e. thoroughly cooked or fried.

Your reasoning doesn't hold water because one can say the same thing about the blood (black pudding) and so on..
This point was discussed lengthily in others thread, it is not necessary to repeat it in this thread.

If someone tells you "Do not listen to Jews or Muslims or bishops or Buddhists or Hindus."
Dont the bishops seem a bit out of place in the picture? It goes general, general, specific, general, general.

This is only you own interpretation about 'AW/OR", what you consider as specific or general is only subjective. In other word, what is already dead can be considered as specific in the same way for corruptly dedicated to other than God and so...

The common points in the light of the Reading can be summurized in two points 1)what is mentionned (6145) is a prohibited food which can be eaten if one is forced by dire need without being deliberate and without transgressing and 2) not pure.
Moreover, the God used aw/or and wa/and interchangeably for them (6145, 16115, 2173).

The God prohibited to the "allatheena hadooh" in 6146 all that have claws/hoof and the fat of the cattle, where is the problem?

Why "AW/OR" is used in 6145 instead WA/and like in 16115, 2173?
I invite you to read 6145 together

Say I do not find in what is inspired to me forbidden to a one eater to eat except that it be already dead, or running blood, or the meat of pig, it"the prohibited food" is foul/unhealthy/unpure; or what is corruptly dedicated to other than God. Whoever is forced without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.

Qul la ajidu feema oohiyailayya muharraman AAala taAAimin yatAAamuhu illa an yakoona maytatan aw daman masfoohan aw lahmakhinzeerin fa-innahu rijsun aw fisqan ohilla lighayri Allahibihi famani idturra ghayra baghin wala AAadinfa-inna rabbaka ghafoorun raheemun

"Yakoon" refers to some thing in a singular form which is here the prohibited food. This is why the letter AW/OR is used 1) dead or 2) running blood or 3) the meat of pig or 4) what is corruptly dedicated to other than God.

"Yakoon" is common to the four propositions in the same way than "fa-innahu rijsun".
The letter AW/or between these four propositions implies "aw yakoona /or that it be 1) or that it be 2) or that it be 3) or that it be 4).

Like "yakoon", "innahu" refers to some thing in a singular form and refers to each of these four propositions individually, this is why "innahu" (hu--> singular form) is usud instead of "innahum" (hum---> plural form)
"Innahu" is in agreement with "yakoon", both refer to the four propositions individually, this is why aw/or is used.

For more information about "fa-innahu rijsun", I invite you to read this thread "New reading of V 6145

Maybe, like you say, my views are subjective, and I would gladly change them, but only on grounds of reason, not because someone says so.

I agree but until now you refuse to consider all the argument based both on reason and internal structure of the Reading to get a better understanding of 6145, 16115, 2173. You base your reasonning on a wrong understanding of the letter "AW" to build your theory.

Therefore please convince me.

I don't seek to convince anyone on this forum, only to share my understanding. My discussion with you and other members helps me to improve my own understanding and seek all the arguments in the light of the Reading. I'm greatful to you all )

Regards

unknownuser