Could somebody study the terms "RaJuL" and "NISAa" to see what they could...
-
No need to find "alternative interpretations", there are clear enough meanings there already. Even the Bible and Torah have Lot's encounters against a mass population of gays.
-
No need to find "alternative interpretations", there are clear enough meanings there already. Even the Bible and Torah have Lot's encounters against a mass population of gays.
That is what I thought at first, but then since Jonny K, asks specifically about this aya, I went to check and read the ones before and after. In 7.81 in fact what is says is "min dun annisaa', "min dun" meaning "to the exclusion". We see further down that Lut's wife was not saved because she was of the "ghaabirin".
So it was not in fact a preference for rijaal, but an exlusion of nisaa'. And where were women in all that if it was so? Were they also in the abomination of keeping to rijaal, to the exclusion of nisaa'? Or were they keeping to nisaa' to the exclusion of rijaal, o were they keeping to the exclusion of both? Did this people have children?
As to the bible, I think I rather play it safe and stick to the qur'an. Be it as it may, I am lost and would be thankful for as many other people as possible coming with ideas that might help to a better understanding of this passage and of the general understanding of the terms as proposed by jonny k.
Salaam
-
How about a logical analysis....
In a different thread Samia stated that "rijaal" could mean "breadwinners" (heavily paraphrased - but in any case, those that actively seek out something) and "nisaa" could mean "those who stay back".
Now, in 780, Lot asks people, "Why do you commit an indecency (al-fahisha) that nobody has done before you?". In the quran al-fahisha is linked partly in 415 and 416 to homosexuality (indicated by the usage of the dual for males and plural for females). The contrast here isn't between "breadwinners" and "those who stay back", it's between male and female. Two males or multiple females in an act of fahisha. I'll leave that for the imagination. Would there be anything wrong with a man marrying a woman, both from amongst "those who seek"? Or a man marrying a woman, both from amongst "those who stay"? No. The only sane meaning is between genders and again, cross referenced with the other zina/fahisha verses.
Now, on the subject of Lot's wife, she remained behind.
When it says "God punished Lot's people", what does this mean? Did Father Christmas come down in a white robe and kick Lot's people to death and also his wife? Did God send 300 angels from Spartaaaaaaaa! to again, kick the crap out of Lot's people?
Or did Lot's wife simply stay behind and die in the impending shower of meteorites (that more or less were timed to hit them), her own fault for staying back with people in the line of retribution?
Please...
-
Actually, if we look in the dictionnary the rijaal part, rajul, in the sense of human male is a secondary meaning, the primary verbal one being to go on foot, and then as secondary and derived names being manly and being important...
As to nisaa', if I look under n-s-' you are referred to n-s-w, where nisaa', specifically as plural, is practically the only word, which to me is really not to be expected. In fact it is under n-s-' where you would expect that word. Under n-s-w it comes out of the blue, exclusively in plural and with no other primary or secondary meaning whatsoever. I find that surprising and not what one should expect.
Then we have the other possibility n-s-y whose primary meaning is forget. I don't know whether that would mean anything or not, since I am not that knowledgeable in Arabic.
I wonder whether at the time of revelation the meaning of all these words were as fixed as we think them now, and whether their usage was as fixed. We have also that in the qur'an other times when it refers to sexes it talks about al-thkr and al-untha, el muminiin al muminaat, or other ways of denoting the sex of the subjects. So why not always say rijaal and nisaa'? Might it be a pioneer use of "gender" to denote sociological sexing?
OPF (and whoever), please, man, do not see this as splitting hairs or specualtion, if you can help it. I think there are legitimate linguistic questions, at least I have them, which is not to say that I want it to be one way or the other, but just trying to get as much as possible the whole impirt of it. Being an optimist I think that doing that can be very rewarding and we risk learning a lot, hopefully useful, in the process.
Getting to the wife of Lut, she was of the "ghaabireen", I don't know how exactly it is reflected in "remained behind".
Also, I have skipped the whole lot of fahishas in other thread, but concerning that, and apart from any punctual meaning in a certain context, f-h-sh is not in itself restricted to sexual morals, is it?
Please, bring linguistic or logical arguments and knowledge. It is a very interesting subject and one with which we are very often confronted, so it is good to be as prepared as possible.
Salaam
-
Peace all,
Thanks for all the input. Looks interesting. Lets take the rijaal=breadearners/providers and nisaa= those who stay behind meanings and plug them in
You practice(laTatoon) with the breadearners/providers "shahwah", to the exclusion of those who stay behind. Indeed, you are a transgressing people."
Please someone also checkup the root meaning of "tatoon" and "shahwah" so we can get to the bottom of this. However in regards to the point that the Quran uses terms like "zakr wal untha" to denote gender and hence "rjl" and "nisaa" need not imply gender is a bit weak considering the following verse
"Do you practive with the males(Zakraan), of all the people?
and then the very next verse
"You forsake "azwaajikum(your pairs/mates)" that your Lord has created for you! Indeed, you are transgressing people."
So it again seems to be referring to pairs. I thought of another way in which to separate so termed "homosexuals" which are infact NOT male or female(just a penis doesnt make one male; theres more to it and hence theres another pair altogether living amongst the human race) from those who are perfectly attarcted to females but yet deleiberately decide to engage in male hs. Maybe this is the solution but again im not sure and/or maybe the above terms could also be understood differently. GOD Bless! -
However in regards to the point that the Quran uses terms like "zakr wal untha" to denote gender and hence "rjl" and "nisaa" need not imply gender is a bit weak considering the following verse
"Do you practive with the males(Zakraan), of all the people?
and then the very next verse
"You forsake "azwaajikum(your pairs/mates)" that your Lord has created for you! Indeed, you are transgressing people."I wasn't implying that "only" in those ways were men and women refered to, but rather that it did refer to them as such in different ayas. I had in mind to may be examine when and where that is done and when it is not done. When it is chosen to speak of dhkr and untha, where of mumineen and muminaat or equivalent, where rijaal and nisaa', and any other forms, so as to get more insight.
Also as to the meaning of rijaal and nisaa' other than as women and men, I wouldn't restrict myself to a fixed formulation, because in fact, at least as far as I am concerned I haven't yet seen a formulation that could encompass the vague idea I have. The gender meaning occurred to me as a concept that might at once include females and also gender females not in any sexual sense actually, so not how you have applied it to the Lut aya, but in a social one, let us say very tentatively, dependent persons, namely females, and persons with dependants, namely males. But don't take this too much as an assertion, I am just exploring, because I think there is merit in getting to the bottom of the polisemic value of rijaal and nisaa'.
Going back to the Lut aya, and in spite of OPF's healthy assurance, I still wonder if indeed they had children, since the male-female (if that is what rijaal and nisaa' were there for) was non existant. Also it talks about an abomination as had never been committed before, if you read aya 7.80. Which makes me think beyond, but not necessarily apart, of sodomy or sex, since I cannot imagine that sodomy up to that time had never been committed. Which is why I also ask whether the only value that can be given to fahisha is the one contemplated of sexual behaviour, or conversely, whether we have covered every sexual behaviour. May be we are too pure nowadays and are uncapable of imagining anything unheard of.
I hope more people come with fresh ideas.
Salaam
-
What time-frame does the quran give Lot and his people?
Or is "sodomy up to that time had never been committed" the only reference?
-
What time-frame does the quran give Lot and his people?
Or is "sodomy up to that time had never been committed" the only reference?
I don't understand your question. May be you can be more explicit.
In 7.80 in Arabic to me it looks quite conclusive as to length of time, if that is what you mean
ma sabaqakum biha min ahadinn min al 3alaameen. In Yusuf's Ali translation "such as no people in Creation committed before you".
Neither the Arabic nor the translation, in my view, fit mere sodomy.
Salaam
-
Around what period of time did Lot and his people exist? In terms of x years AD/BC?