My Understanding of 4:15-16
-
After a discussion on homosexuality in this forum , I became convinced that the Quran doesn?t forbid same-sex marriage;
/quote]Peace,
Respectfully.You are wrong.
The Exalted God Most Merciful did not forget anything in the Quran.
Which prophet said that it was disgusting when he discovered that men desire men instead of women?
Did God said to him not to reprimand them?
No.
Lut's people i think were doing these things where men apparently wanted men and not women, sexually, so he said that is awful, disgusting, right?Can someone find that verse please? Thank you.
God bless you.Peace.
-
After a discussion on homosexuality in this forum , I became convinced that the Quran doesn?t forbid same-sex marriage;
/quote]Peace,
Respectfully.You are wrong.
The Exalted God Most Merciful did not forget anything in the Quran.
Which prophet said that it was disgusting when he discovered that men desire men instead of women?
Did God said to him not to reprimand them?
No.
Lut's people i think were doing these things where men apparently wanted men and not women, sexually, so he said that is awful, disgusting, right?Can someone find that verse please? Thank you.
God bless you.Peace.
Peace
I wrote the verses in my first reply.
Peace -
That doesn't mean it forbids same-sex marriage.
If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or that which your right hands possess. That will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. (4-3)
That is what God allow for Man to Marry. And if he choose another Sex, then
) Who are active in deeds of charity; (23-4) Who abstain from sex, (5) Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess for (in their case) they are free from blame, (6) But those whose desires exceed those limits are transgressors (7)
What do you understand from these verses, along with LUT story?
Peace -
Peace
This is my honest understanding, I hope I don't offend anyone.
If you read the story of Lot, God specifically says LUST. "Why do you lust after men..." God tells us that lusting/fornication is bad for us and therefore unlawful (God doesn't ban anything good to us, but the devil makes our evil look appear alluring to us.). REMEMBER God does not leave anything out that is important, God specifically did not say "Why do you love men..." therefore God has not specifically banned homosexual love/marriage but forbids lewd, explicit acts ie orgies, rape etc but this is for both same and opposite sex interactions!Belalhammad when you refer to "but those whose desires exceed those limits are transgressors" I think the Qur'an is referring to sex outside of marriage including homosexual sex, which is why it comes after the "marriage bond" part, the funny thing is you put it in context so you made your point void. Your point would be accepted if it was in the context of "and those who abstain from MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE SAME SEX.... but those whose desires exceed those limits are transgressors..." there is no context like this, use your reason?
Give me one verse that says "You are not to marry or love men, you are not to live in tranquility with men" It DOES say women were created as partners for us to live with in love and tranquility. But God does not explicitly forbid homosexual love. If it was truly evil God would explicitly ban it just like pork, blood, adultery, fornication in Sura 2 and throughout the Qur'an and there would be no way around it, because the Qur'an is a CLEAR explanation of things. But God is most merciful. I understand there are those born attracted to men and can't help it (same for homosexual women as well). Those who are living feeling depressed because they do not feel normal and stay in the closet, lose friends and are afraid of their family's rejection. These are natural gays, God created them just like God created the blind, the lame and the terminally ill, But there are some people who are "bi" and grow up in a world unsure of their sexuality where homosexual lust is presented as an option that is normal, when it isn't by God's standard but its accepted therefore they say "ok I must be gay, let me be gay" when they could have gone the other way if they read the Qur'an, (maybe they would find another homosexual and get married), these are nurtured gays (ie gays by their environment not by birth). God is the most just of all Judges he will decide for all mankind. Homosexuality is such a grey area and that's the best way I decipher it. I am not homophobic in the least, I accept it as part of society because natural gays can't help how they were born. I pray for those who are confused and need guidance and I hope they are happy wherever they end up. Those who are homophobic and think homosexuality is unnatural (it is natural just not normal) will read what they want in the Qur'an and will remain close-minded and will not try to understand how hard it is to grow up homosexual. We will all return to God in the end.
Peace
-
Peace
This is my honest understanding, I hope I don't offend anyone.
If you read the story of Lot, God specifically says LUST. "Why do you lust after men..." God tells us that lusting/fornication is bad for us and therefore unlawful (God doesn't ban anything good to us, but the devil makes our evil look appear alluring to us.). REMEMBER God does not leave anything out that is important, God specifically did not say "Why do you love men..." therefore God has not specifically banned homosexual love/marriage but forbids lewd, explicit acts ie orgies, rape etc but this is for both same and opposite sex interactions!You are wrong, please reread the verse
"For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." (7-81)
The Sin is Lust on man instead of Women.
Peace
-
You are wrong, please reread the verse
"For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." (7-81)
The Sin is Lust on man instead of Women.
Peace
Yes, you are right. The Sin is lust on man instead of Women. I was not wrong, I just shortened the quote, I still agree with this verse.
Now tell me a verse, a fragment in the Qur'an where EXPLICITLY says you cannot love men instead of women, just like fornication, adultery, pork, blood, murder are EXPLICITLY banned. Give me one sentence where it says you cannot marry a man. Do not give me a verse you used previously because I already rebutted against that. You know well the difference between lust and love in the Qur'an, God mentions love in the Qur'an therefore it exists. Now show me.
To make my point even more clear, I will quote from the Qur'an
"And Lot when He said to his people, 'You practise outrageous acts that no people before you have ever commited. How can you lust after men, waylay travellers, and commit evil in your gatherings?"
It's pretty clear with this verse and that verse you used that lust and sexual abuse is the clear route to evil whether with men or women. Like I said before show me part of the Qur'an against Man loving Man. Don't get me wrong, Man loving Women is the normal way of things because it is the only way procreation occurs. But that does not mean homosexuality is not part of nature (research on homosexual animals).
Another quote you used
"If two men commit a lewd act, punish them both; if they repent and mend their ways, leave them alone - God is always ready to accept repentance, He is full of mercy."
The DEFINITION of lewd, in the quotes you used is driven by lust; preoccupied with or exhibiting lustful desires. Therefore acts homosexual or NOT that are lewd/lustful/libidinous/lascivious are evil. Love between men is not defined as evil. Prove me wrong.
Peace
-
I dont think homosexuality love is a sin, from what I have seen in the Quran, but I do believe that if it is done in place of a woman, a woman who has been brought into contact with a homosexual man, then it is a sin, cos the woman is left hanging.....
The sin comes when the option of the woman comes into play...it says it plain as day in 781"For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds."
I know that sounds odd, but I have my reasons for feeling this...........
The Quran uses the word transgressing a bit, and I feel it points to acts that are done, when one knows what one is doing is wrong.....If you are a homosexual that doesnt think that what he is doing has been wrong then fine, one cant be a sinner in ignorance....its when one KNOWS.......
Peace
-
Yes, you are right. The Sin is lust on man instead of Women. I was not wrong, I just shortened the quote, I still agree with this verse.
Now tell me a verse, a fragment in the Qur'an where EXPLICITLY says you cannot love men instead of women, just like fornication, adultery, pork, blood, murder are EXPLICITLY banned. Give me one sentence where it says you cannot marry a man. Do not give me a verse you used previously because I already rebutted against that. You know well the difference between lust and love in the Qur'an, God mentions love in the Qur'an therefore it exists. Now show me.
To make my point even more clear, I will quote from the Qur'an
"And Lot when He said to his people, 'You practise outrageous acts that no people before you have ever commited. How can you lust after men, waylay travellers, and commit evil in your gatherings?"
It's pretty clear with this verse and that verse you used that lust and sexual abuse is the clear route to evil whether with men or women. Like I said before show me part of the Qur'an against Man loving Man. Don't get me wrong, Man loving Women is the normal way of things because it is the only way procreation occurs. But that does not mean homosexuality is not part of nature (research on homosexual animals).
Another quote you used
"If two men commit a lewd act, punish them both; if they repent and mend their ways, leave them alone - God is always ready to accept repentance, He is full of mercy."
The DEFINITION of lewd, in the quotes you used is driven by lust; preoccupied with or exhibiting lustful desires. Therefore acts homosexual or NOT that are lewd/lustful/libidinous/lascivious are evil. Love between men is not defined as evil. Prove me wrong.
Peace
Lust was used to translate the word ?Shahowa?. Shahowa is only permitted between man & woman; sexual desire that leads to sex is only permitted between man and woman; Sex is not permitted between Man and Man, Woman & Woman, Man & animal, or Woman & animal.
Therefore, Love relationship THAT leads to SEX is only permitted between MAN & WOMAN, according to GOD WORDS. That is how human use their Brain to reason.
Use the IF & THEN LOGIC to reach to this conclusion.
Sure you can LOVE your DAD, MOM, SON, and FRIEND from the same sex, but you cannot Have a sexual relationship with them or Marry them; why? Because it is a FORBIDDEN ACT.Peace
-
And his people came rushing towards him, and they had been long in the habit of practising abominations. He said "O my people! Here are my daughters they are purer for you ! Now fear Allah, and cover me not with shame about my guests! Is there not among you a single right-minded man?" (11-7 They said "Well dost thou know we have no need of thy daughters indeed thou knowest quite well what we want!" (79)
Can you tell me how do you uderstand that Verse?
-
You guys will learn four important things if you just go through the thread on homosexuality I started. I'll give you a summary, but please do go through that thread
-
781 isn't merely about lust, it's about sex. It says "You Latatoona men with desire". Latatoona means "You do", "You come" or "You commit", so this verse isn't simply about lusting after men (lust isn't evil at all, it's the first step towards love according to scientists), it's about "Doing them" (having sex with them).
-
Because the Quran doesn't permit sex outside of marriage, the women in 781 must be understood to be the wives of the men Lot was addressing. 26166 makes it perfectly clear that the women Lot was talking about were the wives of the men he was addressing. So Lot condemned them because they were cheating on their wives.
-
The people of Lot didn't engage in monogamous and consentual gay sex. They used to rape men (1561-72), castrate them (2929) and have orgies in clubs (2929). To them, sex wasn't so much about harmless pleasure, it was about power and dominance.
-
Lot's "daughters" were the women of his nation because a prophet and his wife were always their nations' spiritual parents (336). Lot wouldn't have told the men of his nation to rape his daughters, because God would've finished him off with his people if he had made that enormous mistake.
Now please, let's go back to the topic we were meant to discuss in here.
-
-
Sorry, but I am confused Supernaut.
What is the purpose of this thread.?....I dont get it....if I have gone off topic above, I'm sorry. I see your first post arguing that homosexuals are void of being counted within the verse....perhaps I have it wrong......you have to agree that when you bring up topics that are very debatable, then it is quite likely that the topic will stray somewhat....
I appreciate your opinion, but i personally think you are thinking too much about these two verses......and are making to much out of it....for me it is saying, unless you are a man and woman in wedlock, then you shouldnt be fornicating or lusting with/over another..simple..I think the point of the verse that needs thinking about is the first line.."if any of YOUR women".....what does that mean....is it a verse for men? Im confused......i think the reason that woman are more frowned upon having sexual relations out of wedlock, is because they can bare children.....its possible a woman wouldnt know who the father of a child is, if she was to bare one whilst fornicating....it plain as day says to me that two men fornicating is bad aswell, and it is something that needs to change in order to receive forgiveness, but it isnt as bad as children being sired by fathers that the mother is not sure of.......I know there is no mention of children,in the verse, but it makes logical sense to me......and is the only reason i can think of that would not make the punishments equal....
I have to say though, the whipping and stoning that goes on under Islamic law, for this sin (crime), totally goes against what God has said.....
just my 2 cents
-
- 781 isn't merely about lust, it's about sex. It says "You Latatoona men with desire". Latatoona means "You do", "You come" or "You commit", so this verse isn't simply about lusting after men (lust isn't evil at all, it's the first step towards love according to scientists), it's about "Doing them" (having sex with them).
Lust is only permitted (Good and not Evil) between Man & Woman.
- Because the Quran doesn't permit sex outside of marriage, the women in 781 must be understood to be the wives of the men Lot was addressing. 26166 makes it perfectly clear that the women Lot was talking about were the wives of the men he was addressing. So Lot condemned them because they were cheating on their wives.
rotfl
nope
You twisted that one
- The people of Lot didn't engage in monogamous and consentual gay sex. They used to rape men (1561-72), castrate them (2929) and have orgies in clubs (2929). To them, sex wasn't so much about harmless pleasure, it was about power and dominance.
It means Sex party between MEN in their club. ;D
- Lot's "daughters" were the women of his nation because a prophet and his wife were always their nations' spiritual parents (336). Lot wouldn't have told the men of his nation to rape his daughters, because God would've finished him off with his people if he had made that enormous mistake.
Please, if you think about the psychological statge that Lut was going through, you can understand why he might said something like that (I think he was sure that this people do not Lust for Woman, but they were comming to Seduce his guests)
( (
We also (sent) Lut he said to his people "Do ye commit lewdness such as no creature ever committed before you? (80) "For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." (81)No creature except humans can do that; why? its The Human Free Well brickwall
Now please, let's go back to the topic we were meant to discuss in here.
Sure
-
Salam,
Supernaut,
Many of us have pointed out verses to you (in this thread and others) that indicate that homosexual activity is forbidden.
Maybe the reason you are still having trouble with verses such as 415-16 is that you are clinging to an understanding that is incorrect and this has left you in confusion with other verses.
You keep bringing up the topic of homosexuality (in this thread and herehttp//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=16791.0
But then refuse to discuss the heart of the matter.A good analogy is You bring a gorilla in the room wearing a baseball cap. But refuse to discuss the gorilla, you only want to discuss the cap.
My point is that when you bring a verse for discussion, you must accept that the MAIN theme will be discussed.
I also wonder if maybe there is a part of you that knows homosexuality is forbidden but you are still trying to search for a verse that says "it's ok."
Salam,
Arnab -
Sorry, but I am confused Supernaut.
What is the purpose of this thread.?To discuss whether I'm right or wrong in my understanding of 415-16. I suggested that the verses might be about prostitutes rather than homosexuals.
I'm sorry. I see your first post arguing that homosexuals are void of being counted within the verse....perhaps I have it wrong......
Don't be sorry because you're right. All I'm saying is let's not discuss the Quran's position on homosexuality and instead discuss 415-16 only.
you have to agree that when you bring up topics that are very debatable, then it is quite likely that the topic will stray somewhat....
True.
I appreciate your opinion, but i personally think you are thinking too much about these two verses......and are making to much out of it....for me it is saying, unless you are a man and woman in wedlock, then you shouldnt be fornicating or lusting with/over another..simple..I think the point of the verse that needs thinking about is the first line.."if any of YOUR women".....what does that mean....is it a verse for men? Im confused......i think the reason that woman are more frowned upon having sexual relations out of wedlock, is because they can bare children.....its possible a woman wouldnt know who the father of a child is, if she was to bare one whilst fornicating....it plain as day says to me that two men fornicating is bad aswell, and it is something that needs to change in order to receive forgiveness, but it isnt as bad as children being sired by fathers that the mother is not sure of.......I know there is no mention of children,in the verse, but it makes logical sense to me......and is the only reason i can think of that would not make the punishments equal....
I can't accept that God would prescribe a harsher punishment for women because women don't get pregnant without the help of men.
-
Maybe the reason you are still having trouble with verses such as 415-16 is that you are clinging to an understanding that is incorrect and this has left you in confusion with other verses.
Well, show me how I might be wrong about 415-16.
You keep bringing up the topic of homosexuality (in this thread and herehttp//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=16791.0
But then refuse to discuss the heart of the matter.No, I brought up homosexuality once. What I've brought up in this thread is different. Related, but different. Can we not discuss whether 415-16 are about prostitutes or homosexuals without focusing too much on whether the Quran forbids homosexuality or not? I believe we can. You won't be digressing if you believe 415-16 forbid homosexuality and quote other verses that you believe support your understanding but to not discuss 415-16 at all and quote a bunch of other verses is digressing.
I also wonder if maybe there is a part of you that knows homosexuality is forbidden but you are still trying to search for a verse that says "it's ok."
I wonder if you're capable of having a discussion with me without resorting to ad hominem arguments. You did this in the thread on homosexuality and you're doing it again.
-
Lust was used to translate the word ?Shahowa?. Shahowa is only permitted between man & woman; sexual desire that leads to sex is only permitted between man and woman; Sex is not permitted between Man and Man, Woman & Woman, Man & animal, or Woman & animal.
Therefore, Love relationship THAT leads to SEX is only permitted between MAN & WOMAN, according to GOD WORDS. That is how human use their Brain to reason.
Use the IF & THEN LOGIC to reach to this conclusion.
Sure you can LOVE your DAD, MOM, SON, and FRIEND from the same sex, but you cannot Have a sexual relationship with them or Marry them; why? Because it is a FORBIDDEN ACT.Peace
And you still didn't give me a verse saying you cannot marry another man. I want one verse that explicitly says it, that says its a forbidden act to be attracted to a non-blood man and marry him if you love him. You have said all this above but you didn't find anything? What about those who were born gay, what can they do to stop themselves? It's like telling us heterosexuals to abstain from sex, it's just as hard to be celibate for the rest of your life like Catholic Priests Their sexual desire might manifest in worst ways, if it is not maintained in a marriage regardless of if we're straight or not . Homosexuality occurs in animals, did you research on it? It's part of nature, its not something human beings devised to be evil. God has advised against homosexual acts of the lewd nature, but He has not forbidden it in marriage is my understanding.
Respectfully
SoofPeace
-
Soof and Supernaught,
Look I personally never thought I had a problem with homosexuality.......but since reading the Quran I do. In the Quran its states, that men are the protectors and maintainers of women, how can that happen if you are shacking up with men?.....It states everywhere I can find the word marriage, that marriage is to a wife or women.....not another man.....never does it say that......
It says 7189 "It is He Who created you from a single person, and made his mate of like nature, in order that he might dwell with her (in love). When they are united, she bears a light burden and carries it about (unnoticed). When she grows heavy, they both pray to God their Lord, (saying) "If Thou givest us a goodly child, we vow we shall (ever) be grateful."
Notice it says her, not him?what do I know, I just hope I dont have a mate out there, that God, has given me.....(supposedly there will be signs of the mate I am to have 3021).....that chooses homosexuality instead..... giveup
Edit and as for men being like animals....hello.......where does it say to look to animals to see how to live ones life....?
I dont know, I am no saint, but since finding the Quran and since truly knowing the error of my past ways, I have restrained myself....( and yes its hard)
If you guys are really worried about your inability to not refrain from having sex with men, then perhaps fast...or....Get married to another man and hope God did mean it was ok, and he forgot to mention it....
And just in case pray for the female mates that God may have given you, that will remain in a state of chastity, while you do your thing.........I'll pray for you too.....
Sorry for the brutal honesty here folks.......I do care for all of you....
Peace
-
Well, show me how I might be wrong about 415-16.
415-16 uses the word fahisha what that fahisha is......is not stated.
But, Belalhammad (in my opinion) has done a good job of presenting you with clear evidence and verses that indicate that homosexuality falls under the catagory of fahisha. Isn't that what you were asking?
I wonder if you're capable of having a discussion with me without resorting to ad hominem arguments. You did this in the thread on homosexuality and you're doing it again.
So, because I disagree with you on the subject, you conclude that I lack reasoning in my response? interesting.
Salam,
Arnab -
It says 7189 "It is He Who created you from a single person, and made his mate of like nature, in order that he might dwell with her (in love).
A point of detail that doesn't affect at all to the reasoning done by boomerang, but for the sake of accuracy
This first "her" (highlighted), gramatically feminine, goes back to "nafs", which is feminine and which is translated as person, whereas the "he", that precedes it in fact goes back to zauj "mate", gramatically masculine. It is in the next sentence where the two "zauj" appear sexed and the relationship is specified.
As to the question of homosexual alliances in general, I think we are talking about different things here sexual physical relations between persons, hormonal attraction between persons, a certain type of contract for having offspring, the individual need for emotional stability, the need for an ordered life... They are all different things. One would say that the need to interest both sexes in the wellbeing of the offspring favours that several of the elements mentioned concurr in a successful marriage, which is a legal pact. The more of the above mentioned elements present in contrating a marriage, the greater the possibility that it serves the persons and the society involved.
There is no reason why any two people (or more) could not make a contract to assist each other in the same way that partners assist each other, and even to share a dwelling and fortunes if that suits them. The different aspects can be the subject of a contract.
Now, what any two people, whether same or different sex, do in their privacy is of no concern whatsoever to anybody else. In the case of marriage (between male and female) it is of concern from the point of view of the offspring and its health and wellbeing. But if there is no offspring there is really no need to know for anybody if such and such people, whatever their sex, live like nuns or as the opposite, or if they lay cards in the evenings or tend the garden.
What we see today is that many times marriage doesn't gurantee much the offspring and that it doesen't seem to be as efective for the offspring as it could be. However non marriage would gurantee still much less. So there are functions in marriage which advice to keep it as and institution for the ukeeping of the species. May be other people who want to live in partnership may simly device a contract for just that a "partnership pact", so that the obligation of society and parents to the offspring is not diluted, an those who would like to maintain partnerships that do not entail the possibility of offspring can benefit from social and legal stability and protection.
However, marriage for the sake of offspring and offspring itself, including that outside marriage for whatever reason, should always have priority protection from the society.
Salaam