PB,

You're being hypocritcal ... saying again would give the false impression that its intermittent ...

Now lets take a look at this ... thing .... that you call logic ...

Listen, I'll accept that there is no "only" in the ayat, no problem. Let's change "only" then...to "every", kewl? LOL! Now, my problem is solved, however, yours and the others is not. Ayat 6146 still says that, the animals with claws were made haram for the Jews to eat. Now, have you ever seen a pig...with claws? In that, pigs do not have claws, they are exempt from the animals made haram to the Jews, period, end of story. Now, given that Allah did not make the pig haram to the Jews, guess what?...you and the others cannot extrapolate or claim that He did.

Now watch carefully ... this is called logical reasoning ... not to mention basic grammer

1. EVERY animal with claws prohibited --> Pigs have no claws --> therefore 6146 does not apply to pigs

read it a couple of time so you understand it ... then compare it to

2. ONLY animals with claws prohibited --> Pigs have no claws --> therefore pigs are not prohibited

in case you are forgetting ... number 2 (quite appropriately) is the crap you've been dolling out for the past 11 pages ...

LOL! Now, my problem is solved

I concur with the LOL part ...

tell me ... Is it nice in this fantasy world of your's? ...

your problems are far from solved ... and I'm not just talking about this thread either ...

but you know what they say ... small steps ... now that we have eliminated your imaginary friend Mr ONLY from in 6146 ... lets bring it home for the big finish shall we?

Repeat after me

6146 does not apply to Pigs. I can't use it to prove pigs aren't prohibited.

6146 does not apply to Pigs. I can't use it to prove pigs aren't prohibited.

6146 does not apply to Pigs. I can't use it to prove pigs aren't prohibited.

Keep repeating it until you get it ...

mz357,

I have said before and state again that the definitional argument on what "Lahma Khanzeeran" means, is a valid debate ...

I am not an arabic expert and have therefore read with interest what the participants of this thread have brought to the table in this regard ... yours included ...

what I can't stand, however, is the dishonest mixing of false logic in this discourse just to prove a point on the definition ...

I know enough arabic to know that the word for ONLY in arabic is FAQAT .... and I know that it isn't in ayat 6146 ... nor a synonym for that matter ...

so it behooves those who have done this to accept that they are wrong in this regard ... and stop trying to push an agenda on a false basis ...

that being done, we can continue to try to come to an understanding on the meaning ... or perhaps ultimately ... agree to disagree on the definition ... and that will be fine ...

... to you your religion and to me mine ... no compulsion in religion ... I'll see you on the last day we'll take it up with the big guy ... whatever ... it's cool ...

my issue has merely been people bringing crap to the table and then insisting it doesn't stink ...

incidentally speaking of which ... here is a lil quote i caught at the following website ... http//www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/CU/matterofhealth.htm

I haven't done any research to verify it ... I only add it here because I had such a visceral reaction when i read it ... and wanted to share ...

Even when stacked in cages, piglets thrive on offal when only the pig in the top cage receives food. Farmers have increased their profits by feeding free raw sewage to pigs. Chicken farmers often keep a hog so they can dispose of dead chickens without having to bury them" (Russell, p. 81).

yummy ....

Folks ?

It?s good to see things are exactly where I left them ?

I made a point in my first post to break this whole discussion into a logical and definitional argument ?

Once again ? lets try to put the logical argument to rest shall we? ?

Logical argument? ? Guess what? ? there isn?t one!!!

It?s a fantasy that PB likes to extol on the basis of the mysterious ONLY ?

For those of you not acquainted with the mysterious ONLY allow me to introduce you ?.

This ONLY is PB?s personal superhero ? his caped crusader ? that sweeps into and out of ayat 6146 when it suits him ?

It allows him to launch into

why did Allah knowing that the pig is fasiqun and rijisun, yet, allow the Prophets/Messengers and all of the righteous among them, for ages, to eat swine? This just makes no sense.

And this one

ayat 6146 makes clear that ONLY animals with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep, were made haram for the Jews to eat as food. Since pigs have no claws they cannot be haram for the Jews

Now here is how PB translates 6146

And to those who were Jews We made haram every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both

Does anyone see an ONLY in this ayat? ?

I don?t.

I looked for the phrase "to those who were Jews we ONLY made haram ..."

I looked at different translations ... focused on the arabic ... guess what? ... no ONLY ....

Heavens!!! There is no ONLY there!!!

NEWS FLASH There is no ONLY there!!!!

I REPEAT There is no ONLY there!!!!

ONE MORE TIME There is no ONLY there!!!!

What does that do to PB?s logical argument?.... It makes it rather ?ill seeming? is what it does ?

Numerous people ? including my self ? have already written pages on how PB's stance ... supported by his mysterious ONLY ...doesn?t hold any water... and highlighted how PB changes stance when it gets too hot for him ?

But you know what? ? I?ll make it really simple

There is no mysterious ONLY ? therefore PB has no logical argument ?

?Lahma Khinzeeran? ? irrespective of what it means ? is haram for all mankind ? and always has been ? Period.

Based on this ? All those who think that PB?s logical argument is ? ill seeming ? say AYE ?

PS if you say NAY ... come prepared to reveal the secret identity of the mysterious ONLY ? just where in the heck does it come from? ?

PB

I've spoken to you with respect, but you persist in being a smart-mouthed little boy in return, hence, it is apparent that you only want to be antagonistic. So, we're done. Peace.

I would have appreciated it if you had given me answers instead of what you call respect ... personally your constant evasion of the issues was more disrespectful that anything else that transpired on this thread ...

I think its pretty clear now that you have no intention of responding to mine, or anybody else's questions ...

thats cool ... it was getting pretty old anyways ...

ciao ...

To persist in referring to me as you do is offensive and cowardly. Would you, if we were face to face, persist in addressing me in fashion that I asked you not to? Would you really do that? If not, then, don't it from behind the fence of cyber-space, it's cowardly. Be a man and stop, cool?

PB .. for all I know ... u are a sumo wrestler ... if such were the case and we were in an argument .. and you told me to stop picking on you ... I would certainly consider the possibilty that you might beat me into a pulp if I didn't ...

but guess what? ... we are in cyber space ... the great equalizer ... where one can not use intimidation or other forms of coercion to win an argument ... where the simple and straight forward way to win an argument is to counter your opponents points ... so be a man and stop whinning ... answer the questions ...

Anyway, what, exactly, have I flipped-flopped on? Please post it and make your case.

Quote
if I may be so bold ... start with the logical argument on Jews ... I'm particularly fond of that ...

What didn't you grasp?

I don't grasp how you flip flop between

1. The Jews are included in all mankind and the restrictions in do apply to them

AND

2. The Jews are not included in all mankind and the restrictions in do not apply to them

I can't be clearer than that.

Yes or no answers...leaves no doubt as to where one stands.

except when it is impossible to answer with a Yes or No ... haven't we already gone over this?

When they answer I will answer their questions post haste.

Hey ... since I did answer the questions ... can I get a response next time? ... cool?

PB,

edgy? ... damn ... I was shooting for witty and blithe ...

regarding my comments ... i think they are very pertinent ... its called Calling a Spade a Spade ...

you must admit your flip-flopping on the logical argument of whether Jews are included in or not is ... worrisome ... if hypocricy or schizophrenia don't explain this ... what is the reason behind your change of stance? .... how does the mysterious "only" flit in and out of your arguments like a masked crusader? ...

And about the stupid questions ... if ever I ask you "Is the US flag Blue or Red?" ... please ... I beseech you ... tell me I'm being a moron ... I won't take it personally ... honest ...

So ... here we are again ... someone has actually taken the time to address your issues ...

here's a thought ... why don't you try it now? ... I hear thats what they do in a debate ...

but where to start? ... you've got pages of unanswered stuff from Tanveer and SC ....

if I may be so bold ... start with the logical argument on Jews ... I'm particularly fond of that ...

Eagerly awaiting your reply.

Best Regards,

Thor

PB,

I'll take a shot at your true/false quiz. Some questions are specifically addressed to SC, but I'll answer as best as I can with my own opinions

53 Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked, and the strangled (animal) and that beaten to death, and that killed by a fall and that killed by being smitten with the horn, and that which wild beasts have eaten, except what you slaughter, and what is sacrificed on stones set up (for idols) and that you divide by the arrows; that is a transgression.

1. The animals restricted to eat in the above ayat, are they, by their created natures, haram to eat. Yes or no?

No. Stupid question. Its obvious that the opposing position is that the flesh of swine is haram by nature, while the other restriction refer to any animal in those conditions. When you already know this, why the moronic insistence on a Yes or No answer? That?s like asking if the US flag is Blue or Red.

2. They are only haram to eat when they enter into a particualr state/condition. Am I correct?

Another stupid question. See the explanation above. What is the point of this?

The pig, being a quarduped, and Allah made all quadrupeds halal to eat, to accept your position then, is to say that the lahma of the quadruped pig, by its very created nature, is haram.

3. Is this your position then that, the very created nature of the pigs flesh is unclean?

Can't speak for SC. Personally Yes. Per

If this is true, then, the flesh of the must have pig has always been, by its created nature unclean, and, if this is the case, why did Allah not make it HARAM for the Jews and ALL of those before them?

Was the pig or any part of it, before the revealing of Al-Quran, haram to eat?

Ok. Here is where I am confused. Are you schizophrenic or just plain hypocritical? Did you read my post? You know the one in which I quoted your post ? in which you stated that 6145 applies to all humanity including Jews?

The answer is Yes. Per

4. The only things forbidden to them, and only because of their transgressions and not because the animal was by nature unclean, are quadrupeds with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep.

Am I correct, yes or no.

No.

Explain to me where your Only came from. And please review my comment above regarding hypocricy and schizophrenia.

51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...

5. Does the above ayat, mention anything about any part of a quadruped not being allowed? Yes or no?

No.

6. The ayat says...quadrupeds and not quadruped. Am I correct?

Yes

7. As you said, and I just want to be certain of your position here, no quadruped, as an entirety, is haram for consumption? Is this your position?

Can't speak for SC. Personally Yes.

A. 51 O you who believe! fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you...

B. SC Quadrupeds are lawful except that which is recited to you. Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions. The restrictions specify what is in particular prohibited.

Ayat 51 says nothing about "except" meaning restrictions on quadrupeds. Am I correct?

No. What part of "The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except ..." didn't you understand?.

8. You wrote "Except that which is recited to you are the restrictions".

Does ayat 51 say what is in the bold and italics?

No. Hey this kinda reminds me of your mysterious "only" from

9. You said "No, we know what ayat 51 means". If this is true, what are the disallowed quadrupeds? Do you know?

Yes. Refer to and

10. Allah, in ayat 560, makes no mention that khinzeerin, is being used as a similitude/figuratively. Am I correct?

Yes.

11. Your claiming that khinzeerin in ayat 560 is figurative, is simply your opinion. Am I correct?

Can't speak for SC. Personally I think 560 is literal.

12. Khanaza, has two distinct meanings pig and something which looks bad. Am I correct?

Yes. Assuming the one dictionary you quoted is accurate. But to borrow a phrase ... it's "simply your opinion" that the adjective is applicable ... actually given the usage of "Al" eliminates the possibility of it being an adjective ... I guess you can contest the one instance where it doesn't use "Al".

13. Do you know for a certainty that, swine, in ayat 53, can only mean pig flesh literally?

Yes. I am no more, and no less certain about my "simple opinion" as you are about your "simple opinion". Stupid question. Don?t try holding people to a standard that you can?t maintain for yourself ... this time just review hypocricy.

14. Did Allah make any quadruped, by its created nature unclean, hence, haram to eat?

Moronic question considering the one that follows.

15. Did Allah make any PART of a quadruped, by its created nature, unclean, hence, haram to eat? Yes or no.

Yes. Refer to {5003] and

16. When Allah made an entire category of animals haram and parts of others haram, was it because the animals by nature were unclean/unfit for human consumption or was it done to punish a people? Is this correct?

WTFO!!! I?d be fascinated if you would show me how to answer this one with a Yes or No

There is two parts to this argument

1)Logical argument Do the verses of the quran as a whole prohibit "lahma khanzeeran"?

2)Definitional argument What is the definition of "lahma khanzeeran"?

Lets deal with the logical argument first.

On the first page of this thread PB made the following statement which I whole heartedly agree with

O.k., let me try it from this angle. You will agree that Al-Quran, per ayat 2185, was sent to all of mankind for guidance; there is no other book or books for mankinds guidance. Included in mankind are the Jews. I'm certain that you also agree with that. Now, although ayat 6147 does not mention the Jews specifically, ayat 6147 does mention what is haram for mankind--the Jews included, thus, the things made haram in ayat 6147 are haram for the Jews as well. I'm certain you must agree with this also. Also keep in mind that, it would be very cumbersome to list all that is halal in Al-Quran, hence, Allah, simply names what is haram and what is not haram is halal. With this in mind then there is no contradiction between ayats 6146-7 and 148 at all.

Although the numbering of the verses is a bit off, (I take it that the verses actually being refernced are 6145-147), I must still thank PB for bringing to a close any logical confusion in this thread so early on. It is clear from the verses, and from PB's analysis above, that God first tells us what is prohibited for ALL MANKIND (including jews) in 6145. (i.e. carrion, blood poured forth, lahma khanzeeran, and meat upon which a name has been invoked, other than Allah's). And then he mentions what was prohibited for the Jews specifically in 6146.

He correctly points out that there is no contradiction in the above two verses. I would add to this that there is no contradiction with verse 55 either.

"55 - YOUSIF ALI 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....."

Since we have already established that the Jewish restrictions mentioned in 6146 are in addition to what is prohibited to all mankind. It is only logical to conclude that everything that the Jews can eat must fall within what the rest of mankind can eat. Therefore all that is lawful to them has to be lawful to the rest of mankind. No contradictions.

At this point, what should also be abundantly clear (to every one that is taking all the quranic verses with regards to food into account), is that there is no way out of the restrictions on food imposed in 6145.

Thus concludes the logical argument "Lahma khanzeeran is prohibited to All Mankind"

Regarding the definitional argument What is the definition 'Lahma Khanzeeran'?. I am no expert in Arabic. I have read the extensive arguments on the definition, and have my own personal opinion on what it means. I believe we are all free to draw our own conlcusions on definitions as they are, to a degree, subjective.

However, I sincerely hope we can agree that the logical argument is closed.

Best Regards,

Thor

this is hilarious ... three pages of whining about a guy who hardly says anything ... what a waste of time and effort ... but now i'm here so I must add my two cents as well ... wink

personally i think his articles are good for this forum ... its better to be aware of this stuff ... I wonder if the reason why so many people are getting irritated by this is that they have issues confronting the reality of all the terrible stuff that goes on in the name of Islam ...

let it go people ... let it go ... there are far more interesting things to be talking about ...