To Priest BOKMEI

unknownuser

Peace,

Likewise

here is some real answer that my child will understand

the issue is not a sentense been gramtically correct

the issue is "Lahm Al Khanzir" IS NOT GRMATICALLY CORRECT, IF KHNAZIR IS AN ADJECTIVE

I. BLOODY E. "Al Khanzir must be noun" in the sentense "Lahm Al Khanzir"

obviously there no good arabic speakers in here who can refute my grammar finding

Your child may be better equipped than you and perhaps hesitate to follow your footsteps. His reasons would be as follows

this will make me happy and proud of him for sure

He will be unable to find the word ?khanzir? when pronounced with a ?zabar? but surely he will come across the word ?khinzir? pronounced with a ?zair? in 2173, 53, 6145 & 16115.

I don't understand your point, Khanzir or Khinzir, my child has confirmed both mean pig

He will question the meaning and validity of ?khanazir? to become a noun in 560 to mean literal.

Haha you do not understand arabic then

I responded to that many times now

the adjective must follow the noun it describes regarding the bloody "Al" I.E "The"

so in "Lahm Khinzir" I agree that Khinzir can be adjective because it followed Lahm, i.e. "Kninzir does not have the Al" as Lahm does not

however Allah mentioned it again in another location as

"Lahm Al Khinzir"

and from that we can 100% confirm that Kninzir can NOT be an adjective because it did not follow "Lahm" regarding the "Al", I. bloody E.

Al Khinzir has the Al and Lahm does not, THIS MUST MAKE Khinzir a NOUN called "Muddaf Ileh"

He will question ?lahma khinzir? being without an ?al? in 6145.

He did and I explained to him that yes it is a noun and commonly used in arabic i. bloody e.

we can say

"Lahm Farkha" "Chicken Meat"

and we can also say

"Lahm Al Farkha" "Meat of the Chicken

but for "Al Farkha" to be an adjective to lahm while Lahm does not have the Al, IS BLOODY IMPOSSIBLE UNDER THE ARABIC GRAMMAR
that is what i told my child

He will question as to why ?lahm al khinzir? is rijsun and what really does "khinzir" mean.

here we go lahm Al Khinzir was decribed as being "rijsun" i.e. "rijusun" is an adjective to "lahm" and both don't have the Al

Al Khinzir is called "Muddaf Ileh" and is required to identify what type of Lahm it is, NOT to describe the Lahm, Rijsun is the adjective to describe the Lahm

He will put the so-called ?good Arabic? to test and hence refute his own dad.

lol , I will kick him out of the house then, just kiddin

no he can't, I know I make mistakes and not as strong in Nahaw as 20 to 25 years ago, but what I'm talking about is a common knowledge in the Arabic Nahaw and even within the normal street talk

WE CAN NOT HAVE AN ADJECTIVE THAT INCLUDES THE "AL" WHILE THE NOUN IT DECRIBES DOES NOT

IT WILL SOUND REALLY ODD

an example is like this

"Al Bent Al Gamilah" i.e "The beautiful Girl"

or

"Bent Gamilah" i.e "Beautiful Girl"

BUT WE NEVER SAY THIS

"Bent Al Gamilah" i.e. "it does not make sense and does not exist ion nahaw or the arabic street language", and it will sound like a girl from an area called "Al Gamilah", "Muddaf Ileh"

Lastly, he would not neglect to answer my post like his dad did.

He is apologising on behalf of his dad

mate I run three companies, I write programms, I fix cars, have two children, and contribute to other boards, in addition to my house duties that I can't dodge, so I surely miss many comments and I can;t help it

but if you don't want me to miss it and keen to know my reply then PM it better

Perhaps I could be wrong about your child's understanding; like father like son!!!

I'm not sure about that, I was born then lived 20 years in egypt, he has never been there, would you reckon he will be like daddy like son?

peace

unknownuser

Peace Ahmed,

He will be unable to find the word ?khanzir? when pronounced with a ?zabar? but surely he will come across the word ?khinzir? pronounced with a ?zair? in 2173, 53, 6145 & 16115.

I don't understand your point, Khanzir or Khinzir, my child has confirmed both mean pig

Pig is not the ONLY meaning for khinzir and where in the Quran has your child confirmed the word ?Khanzir? with the "zabar" rather than the "zair", let alone its meaning. I'd like to confirm that verse as well.

Does khinzir and khanaza ONLY mean pig and nothing else? Can you post other meanings from various dictionaries please?

He will question the meaning and validity of ?khanazir? to become a noun in 560 to mean literal.

Haha you do not understand arabic then

Bragging about grammar without understanding its context/message makes you the least knowledgeable/intelligent. Once again, your child will question the literal meaning of ?khinzir? in 560 and its not possible to mean pig in its context. In other words, he will be baffled to find out about humans being turned/transformed into pigs (and apes).

the adjective must follow the noun it describes regarding the bloody "Al" I.E "The"

so in "Lahm Khinzir" I agree that Khinzir can be adjective because it followed Lahm, i.e. "Kninzir does not have the Al" as Lahm does not

When you take ?lahm al khinizir? and ?lahm khinzir? literally to mean ?meat the pig? and ?meat pig?, neither makes sense. According to you then, the Al-mighty made a huge mistake in making khinzir an adjective in one verse and noun in others, while you conveniently pick and choose the noun word to base your arguments. Talk about challenge and understanding Arabic.

Al Khinzir has the Al and Lahm does not, THIS MUST MAKE Khinzir a NOUN called "Muddaf Ileh"

Then explain ?salaat al wusta?? Is ?wusta? a noun? Just because a word is followed by an ?al? doesn?t make that word a MUST noun. Lahm Khinzir doesn?t have an ?al? and neither does khinzir mean pig in its context. Your Arabic, especially understanding its message, is appalling.

Adjective is a word that expresses an attribute of something. In ?lahm al khinzir?, the word khinzir (ill-seeming) is an adjective that expresses an attribute of the noun word ?lahm? (meat).

we can say

"Lahm Farkha" "Chicken Meat"

And we can say ?lahm khinzir? to mean ?ill-seeming meat?.

and we can also say

"Lahm Al Farkha" "Meat of the Chicken

Literally it means ?meat the chicken? without the ?of?. But when understood and translated in English, then yes the ?of? becomes the part of speech. On the same lines, ?lahm al khinzir? means ?the ill-seeming meat? (with "the") and ?lahm khinzir? means ?ill-seeming meat? (without "the"). Same meaning.

but for "Al Farkha" to be an adjective to lahm while Lahm does not have the Al, IS BLOODY IMPOSSIBLE UNDER THE ARABIC GRAMMAR
that is what i told my child

Whether there?s an ?al? or not, either way the word ?khinzir?, as per the context and as well as naturally, logically, scientifically and GRAMMATICALLY so, must mean ?ill-seeming? and not ?pig?. Else, you must prove that specific to pig's meat, its rijsun by its very nature.

Danish wrote
4. He will question as to why ?lahm al khinzir? is rijsun and what really does "khinzir" mean.

here we go lahm Al Khinzir was decribed as being "rijsun" i.e. "rijusun" is an adjective to "lahm" and both don't have the Al

Al Khinzir is called "Muddaf Ileh" and is required to identify what type of Lahm it is, NOT to describe the Lahm, Rijsun is the adjective to describe the Lahm

You misunderstood your child?s question in bold above. I didn't ask for grammar explanation. Let me interpret in English for you once again WHY is pig?s meat an abomination, hence its restriction?

WE CAN NOT HAVE AN ADJECTIVE THAT INCLUDES THE "AL" WHILE THE NOUN IT DECRIBES DOES NOT

IT WILL SOUND REALLY ODD

an example is like this

"Al Bent Al Gamilah" i.e "The beautiful Girl"

Incorrect translation. It is ?the beautiful the girl? word for word and does sound odd.

BUT WE NEVER SAY THIS

"Bent Al Gamilah"

But you do say ?lahm al khinzir? and "salaat al wusta" in Arabic.

He is apologising on behalf of his dad

Apology accepted. Now then, have him answer the questions raised in my first post above, will ya.

unknownuser

Peace Ahmed,

peace danish

He will be unable to find the word ?khanzir? when pronounced with a ?zabar? but surely he will come across the word ?khinzir? pronounced with a ?zair? in 2173, 53, 6145 & 16115.

I don't understand your point, Khanzir or Khinzir, my child has confirmed both mean pig

Pig is not the ONLY meaning for khinzir and where in the Quran has your child confirmed the word ?Khanzir? with the "zabar" rather than the "zair", let alone its meaning. I'd like to confirm that verse as well.

bro I don't understand what Zabar means, can you elborate? do you mean "Tashkil"?

Does khinzir and khanaza ONLY mean pig and nothing else? Can you post other meanings from various dictionaries please?

bro i never heard of the words "khanza" in 40 years of talking and reading arabic, never even heard a native arabic speaker mentions that word, but all know khinzir as it means a pig, regradless of that if verse 560 where khinzir was mentioned without the Al means rotten meat as khinzir being adjective then I have no problem accepting that the rotten meat is forbidden

however in the other verse where Al Khinzir was mentioned with "Al" which will make it no way adjective then we have another type of meat that is forbidden which is the meat of the pig in addition to the rotten meat

you see you will end up with no solid logic howver long you stretch it

He will question the meaning and validity of ?khanazir? to become a noun in 560 to mean literal.

Haha you do not understand arabic then

Bragging about grammar without understanding its context/message makes you the least knowledgeable/intelligent. Once again, your child will question the literal meaning of ?khinzir? in 560 and its not possible to mean pig in its context. In other words, he will be baffled to find out about humans being turned/transformed into pigs (and apes).

the adjective must follow the noun it describes regarding the bloody "Al" I.E "The"

so in "Lahm Khinzir" I agree that Khinzir can be adjective because it followed Lahm, i.e. "Kninzir does not have the Al" as Lahm does not

When you take ?lahm al khinizir? and ?lahm khinzir? literally to mean ?meat the pig? and ?meat pig?, neither makes sense. According to you then, the Al-mighty made a huge mistake in making khinzir an adjective in one verse and noun in others, while you conveniently pick and choose the noun word to base your arguments. Talk about challenge and understanding Arabic.

mate HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT, please bro drop your ego and listen to something that I'm 100% sure regarding the arabic language

Lahm Khinzir is valid as "Muddaf" and Muddaf Ileh" "i.e.both are nouns"

Lahm Al Khinzir is valid as Muddaf and Muddaf Ileh" "i.e. both are nouns"

Lahm Khinzir is valid assuming Lahm is noun and Khinzir is adjective

Lahm Al Khinzir IS NOT VALID assuming Lahm is noun and Al Khinzir is adjective

i.e. Allah never made a mistake regarding the grammar when He said "lahm Al Khinzir" or "Lahm Khinzir" as both means the meat of the pig

but He will be doing a big mistake if Al Khinzir is an adjective in "Lahm Al Khinzir" because it is not VALID gramatically

DID YOU GET IT THIS TIME MATE?

Al Khinzir has the Al and Lahm does not, THIS MUST MAKE Khinzir a NOUN called "Muddaf Ileh"

Then explain ?salaat al wusta?? Is ?wusta? a noun? Just because a word is followed by an ?al? doesn?t make that word a MUST noun. Lahm Khinzir doesn?t have an ?al? and neither does khinzir mean pig in its context. Your Arabic, especially understanding its message, is appalling.

Bro please, you made a great mistake, here is the verse in arabic

(23

you see bro you posted it wrong, it is "Al Salaat Al Wasta" not "Salaat Al Wasta" as you posted it

The Al is in both "Al Salaat" and in "Al Wusta", this confirms that Al Wusta is an adjective to Al Salaat which means the Middle sallat.

you are mixed up becaise you think I mean the Al comes agfter the word, lol , bro I mean the Al is within the word itself

Thank you Allah for proving my point using Danish argument

Adjective is a word that expresses an attribute of something. In ?lahm al khinzir?, the word khinzir (ill-seeming) is an adjective that expresses an attribute of the noun word ?lahm? (meat).

but if you say it "Lahm Al Khinzir" then "Al Khinzir" can not be an adjective and is a clear cut grammar mistake, but it is a not a grammar mistake if "Al Khinzir is a noun

also "lahm khanzir" is 100% gramatically correct when cosidering both words are NOUNS, but also Khinzir can be adjective to lahm because Khinzir does not have the Al, but knowing that Khinzir is pig, as well it was stated in another location as "Lahm Al Khinzir" then IT HAS TO BE THE MEAT OF THE PIG 500%

we can say

"Lahm Farkha" "Chicken Meat"

And we can say ?lahm khinzir? to mean ?ill-seeming meat?.

yep but becaise Allah refuted it when He called it "Lahm Al Khinzir" in another location, then "lahm khinzir" can not mean ill-seeming meet because if does then "Lahm Al Knaizir" is grmatically wrong, but as I said many times now, Lahm Khinzir is 100% grmatically correct of we consider "Khinzir" as noun or adjective

and we can also say

"Lahm Al Farkha" "Meat of the Chicken

Literally it means ?meat the chicken? without the ?of?. But when understood and translated in English, then yes the ?of? becomes the part of speech. On the same lines, ?lahm al khinzir? means ?the ill-seeming meat? (with "the") and ?lahm khinzir? means ?ill-seeming meat? (without "the"). Same meaning.

but for "Al Farkha" to be an adjective to lahm while Lahm does not have the Al, IS BLOODY IMPOSSIBLE UNDER THE ARABIC GRAMMAR
that is what i told my child

Whether there?s an ?al? or not, either way the word ?khinzir?, as per the context and as well as naturally, logically, scientifically and GRAMMATICALLY so, must mean ?ill-seeming? and not ?pig?. Else, you must prove that specific to pig's meat, its rijsun by its very nature.

I say you just made up that context, possibly you love to eat ham lol , but I can assure you there is no such context, because the other context "Lahm Al Khinzir" must refute your wrong claim

Danish wrote
4. He will question as to why ?lahm al khinzir? is rijsun and what really does "khinzir" mean.

here we go lahm Al Khinzir was decribed as being "rijsun" i.e. "rijusun" is an adjective to "lahm" and both don't have the Al

Al Khinzir is called "Muddaf Ileh" and is required to identify what type of Lahm it is, NOT to describe the Lahm, Rijsun is the adjective to describe the Lahm

You misunderstood your child?s question in bold above. I didn't ask for grammar explanation. Let me interpret in English for you once again WHY is pig?s meat an abomination, hence its restriction?

mate, the grammar is important because one mistake in grammar will render this book nothing but a book of lies

now why the meat of the pig is bad?, I believe i responded with compelling evidences, however let's assume it is the best meat ever, I will still don't eat it because Allah is testing me to see if I will obey or not, you see having sex is great but it is forbidden, now based on your flawed logic regarding what is forbidden then you might as well have sex with any nice woman because sex sound great and there will be no risk if you use a condom

WE CAN NOT HAVE AN ADJECTIVE THAT INCLUDES THE "AL" WHILE THE NOUN IT DECRIBES DOES NOT

IT WILL SOUND REALLY ODD

an example is like this

"Al Bent Al Gamilah" i.e "The beautiful Girl"

Incorrect translation. It is ?the beautiful the girl? word for word and does sound odd.

BUT WE NEVER SAY THIS

"Bent Al Gamilah"

But you do say ?lahm al khinzir? and "salaat al wusta" in Arabic.

mate to say "Salaat Al Wasta" is a total manipulation because it was never mentioned as such and I posted the arabic verse above, it is "Al Salaat Al Wasta" now you owe me a concession

He is apologising on behalf of his dad

Apology accepted. Now then, have him answer the questions raised in my first post above, will ya.

Thanks, and he did answer and is also expecting a concession regarding "Al Salaat Al Wasta" lol

peace be with you

DHUL_QARNAIN

SaLaM idmkhizar

Brother is he gone. loooll

Think again...

DHUL_QARNAIN

IDMKHIZAR,

You continue to ask for a verse where GOD forbids the pig for the Jews. I ask you DOES GOD NEED TO MENTION ALL THE PROHIBITION OF THE PREVIOUS PEOPLE IN THE QURAN? Certainly thats not a necessity is it?

If it weren't necessary for Allah to mention all what is haram, then how would one know...for a certainty...what is haram and what is not?

Wonder what kinna flawed logic ur bent on.

My logic is just fine thank you, it's your commons sense that is flawed.

Btw 6146's purpose is definitely not to proof that those were the only prohibitions to the Jews otherwise GOD would have clearly said so, wouldnt He?

Ayat 6146 tells us exactly what species of animals Allah made haram to the Jews...animals with claws...not animals with hooves, get it?

Thus my point stands, the grammatical form lahnmul khinzeer proofs khinzeer is the animal pig and this further proofs that pig was prohibited to the Jews.

LOL! o.k.

See wer doing a reverse proof here from forward to backward generations NOT backward to forward. We prove that swine is prohibited to us believers and since the food of Jews is allowed to us hence swine was also prohibited to the Jews. Thus no contra at all n case closed unless other valid arguments are brought up which are unlikely. Repeition of the same would be circular and leads us nowehere. GOD Bless!

You haven't proven anything until you can find where Allah...DEFINITIVELY, made the pig haram to the Jews and those before them. Until you can do this, ayat 55 along with ayat 6146, proves that the pig is halal.

unknownuser

Welcome back DHUL_QARNAIN

peace

Grourself

"This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah"

THAT BOOK?

In 23 These people are currently, in the present, YU?MINUNA, trusting in THAT book.

unknownuser

"This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah"

THAT BOOK?

In 23 These people are currently, in the present, YU?MINUNA, trusting in THAT book.

what are you saying exactly?

unknownuser

Salaam Grourself,

Nice to see some old faces here.

Share you're understandings please , what/ which is "That Book" if it's not "This Book".

Salaam.

Grourself

Peace All,

For some reason, the translators have ignored the tense in these and many verses.

22-6

I?m paraphrasing

THAT book is what ayat (2) and the next verses are referring to, not THIS book which is a mistranslation.

The people who are mentioned are those who at the time of this revelation were, currently, in the PRESENT, yu?minu, trusting, in the previous revelation. Aamanu is PAST tense, trusted in , yu?minu is present tense.

These people are trusting what came before and what is now being revealed to the messenger. Those who have already (past tense) kafaru, rejectED that book, will not accept this messenger.

The plain Arabic is very clear and easy to understand. The translators have mutilated these verses and others by ignoring the tense and at the same time obscuring the addressee.

unknownuser

fine bro if you mean by "that book" that it is the Quran, as I believe that "this book" also means the Quran then I have no problem to accept it as "That book"

The tense of the verb "Yumino" has no point here bro

peace

Grourself

The tense is the point. It is not THIS book, it's that book that the people are presently trusting in and not this reading, the Qur'an.

unknownuser

sorry bro i don't get what you mean

is verse 22 talking about the Quran

Yes?

No?

Peace

Grourself

No & yes since the portion of the message that is mentioned as that book, and the reading are the same message. As the sura goes on it includes the reading,...what was revealed to you and what was revealed before...

unknownuser

No & yes since the portion of the message that is mentioned as that book, and the reading are the same message. As the sura goes on it includes the reading,...what was revealed to you and what was revealed before...

Ok, do you mind if I ask if you speak arabic?

jonny_k

Salam DHUL-QARNAIN,

If it weren't necessary for Allah to mention all what is haram, then how would one know...for a certainty...what is haram and what is not?

JK- I said its not a necessity for GOD to directly mention everything that was made haram for the previous generations since that is not much of importnace to us. He did mention all that is haraam fot us and the meaning plus the grammatical form of the phrase "lahm ul khinzeer" proves that it's the PIG MEAT and not "contaminated meat" which is made haram. Saying otherwise would be saying that GOD makes grammatical mistakes.

Ayat 6146 tells us exactly what species of animals Allah made haram to the Jews...animals with claws...not animals with hooves, get it?

JK- Like i said again and again 6146 are NOT the only prohibitons for the Jews. They mention ONLY PART of them. If the verse meant that then GOD would have said "and for the Jews We ONLY prohibited animals with claws" which is NOT the case.

LOL! o.k.

JK- Why lol? Thats how it is.

You haven't proven anything until you can find where Allah...DEFINITIVELY, made the pig haram to the Jews and those before them. Until you can do this, ayat 55 along with ayat 6146, proves that the pig is halal.

JK- I did just that using the reverse proof method. GOD Bless!

unknownuser

Salaams All,

Just pondering not that I am a pig eater -

The word Khanazeer = a deseased animal ,as well, So why shouldn?t it be taken as such.

005.003
Forbidden to you (for food) are dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine???.

Or

005.003
YUSUFALI Forbidden to you (for food) are dead meat, blood, the flesh of the diseased???..

http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume2/00000368.pdf

Salaams.

jonny_k

Salam mz357,

Salaams All,

Just pondering not that I am a pig eater -

The word Khanazeer = a deseased animal ,as well, So why shouldn?t it be taken as such.

005.003
Forbidden to you (for food) are dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine???.

Or

005.003
YUSUFALI Forbidden to you (for food) are dead meat, blood, the flesh of the diseased???..

http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume2/00000368.pdf

Salaams.

JK- Thats because my dear bro mz THE GRAMMATICAL FORM USED IN 53 "LAHM UL KHINZEER(CAN ONLY MEAN FLESH OF SWINE)" WITH THE DEFINITE ARTICLE ONLY IN THE MIDLLE DOES NOT ALLOW THE LATTER WORD TO BE AN ADJECTIVE. This has been explained over and over again. Your above staed meaning of the word can apply if the form would have been "AL lahm UL khinzeer" (can mean the swinish/diseased meat) with the definite article preceding both or in case of "lahmun khinzeer(can also mean both)" where it doesnt precede either of them. Do you understand it now? GOD Bless!