None in the worlds was homosexual before Lut's people?
-
Peace
Actually i did not make an extraordinary claim. Do you know why? because when something is written in the quran it can not be an extraordinary claim. Everything we know about the people of lut in the quran is the truth. And nobody can prove anything else than that. When something is written in the quran it can never be an extraordinary claim because everything in the quran is a fact, every verse. It would have been an extraordinary claim it was said by men, because what people say is man-made and not infallible. But what the God says, is always infallible. If you don't believe me, try to find any contradictions in the quran. But that is an impossible task. Your claim is based on conjecturing without proof. If you are truthful, show me your proofs. Where are your proofs that before the people of lut, any other community were more aggressive and lewd than the people of lut? can you prove that?
The Quran is full of scientific & historical errors & mistakes, simply chock full for that little book. http//www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/SKM/contradictions.htm
Many have been found by many scholars, however, Muslim apologists twist & turn words & meanings to cover up such errors & inadequacies.
I have found many on many sites.
As for proof of other people's lewdness, there's no such proof possible simply because lewdness like beauty is subjective, how do I show proof of someone's beauty being greater than all other folks?
-
This is about lewd stone age communities.
http//www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720068.ece
He may have come down from the trees, but prehistoric man did not stop swinging. New research into Stone Age humans has argued that, far from having intercourse simply to reproduce, they had sex for fun.
Practices ranging from bondage to group sex, transvestism and the use of sex toys were widespread in primitive societies as a way of building up cultural ties.
According to the study, a 30,000-year-old statue of a naked woman - the Venus of Willendorf - and an equally ancient stone phallus found in a German cave, provide the earliest direct evidence that sex was about far more than babies.
Timothy Taylor, reader in archeology at Bradford University, reviewed evidence from dozens of archeological finds and scientific studies for his research.
-
-
Why does Allah claim that "none in the worlds" was homosexual before Lut's people, given that homosexuality is present in so many other animals?
I don't think it's referring to homosexuality in and of itself
I'd like to quote what Arnold Yasin said on an earlier thread, and I do agree with it.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=16791.msg168044#msg168044
Arnold Yasin
Wise One / Burnout
Gender Male
Posts 2628Ignore
Re Homosexuality
? Reply #20 on May 04, 2008, 110734 AM ?Peace,
The Quran is a book on how to construct a social society wherein all members can have complete freedom within certain limits to uphold the social construct. As in every society, this is flexible and can bend according to the thoughts of the time.
From a tribal point of view, homosexuality was a threat to the survival of the tribe, and thus was condemned. This was understandable in those conditions.
In the story of Lot, it describes a society which have open sexual orgies (2929), are racist to any foreigner (1570), are fascistic enough to rape anybody they wish from outside their society (1177-80), looted the caravans and traders (2929), and at the same time had homosexual relationships while being married to a wife also (26166).
Interesting is that the city of Lot is probably Bab edh-Dhra, which archeologists describe as probably one of the first cities in that populated area, being around 10.000-12.000 years old, and being the oldest known that has a fortified wall surrounding it. Could it be that they were the first civilization that didn't had a king or single ruler who created the social construct for them and that they were the first free city run by its people? The Quran says they were the first to commit the act of forsaking their wives, and rather pursuit their own gender in an open way (2928-29). Sounds like a society that was trying to understand and form a new social construct not based on kingship rule or tribal ruling. As I cannot accept that homosexuality was never done before them, I think it rather refers to open homosexual activity.
Anyways, what I am trying to stay is that in my view, the story of Lot condemns the WHOLE society converting to perverse, for being racist and fascist, and for terrorizing the surrounding area. In 11117 it says clearly that a people will not punished as long as they are Muslihoon, people who do salaha, reform society to a good and social one.
The people of Lot where clearly doing the opposite, 1 or 2 homosexuals in a town or city cannot be punished for committing homosexuality in the privacy of their own house, as they still can be part of the social construct of a society and be Muslihoon, social progressive people. But when the whole city is indulged in orgies, and men forsaking their duties as husbands, then the social construct is in danger, and then they cannot be Muslihoon.
Also, it is IMPOSSIBLE, that every person in the city of Lot was really homosexual in nature. So it is important to question Did they commit homosexuality without being homosexual? Was this also a factor involved as we look at their wives being mentioned (26166)?
This is in my eyes the whole point. Yes, 415-16 are intriguing and important, but how can we judge every homosexual when you need 4 witnesses and you cannot break the privacy of a home (2427-29, 58-59; 3353)? This means only open homosexual acts are to be punished, and of course open heterosexual sexual acts, as these can corrupt society and thus the social construct which makes a society Muslihoon or not.
So it is not DIRECTLY about being homosexual, in the Quran it is ONLY judged when somebody?s homosexuality will affect society as it did in the story of Lot.
Same accounts for example on doing hard drugs in a society, only open drug use can be attacked. Private use at home cannot as it would violate the protection of privacy.
Verses involved
Open sexual orgies and looting
2928-29
And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk Lo! ye commit lewdness such as no creature did before you.
For come ye not in unto males, and cut ye not the road (for travellers), and commit ye not abomination in your meetings? But the answer of his folk was only that they said Bring Allah's doom upon us if thou art a truthteller!Racism towards outsiders
1570
hey said; Have we not forbidden you from (entertaining) anyone?Facist and rapist behaviour towards foreigners
1177-80
And when Our messengers came unto Lot, he was distressed and knew not how to protect them. He said This is a distressful day.
And his people came unto him, running towards him - and before then they used to commit abominations - He said O my people! Here are my daughters! They are purer for you. Beware of Allah, and degrade me not in (the person of) my guests. Is there not among you any upright man?
They said Well thou knowest that we have no right to thy daughters, and well thou knowest what we want.
He said Would that I had strength to resist you or had some strong support (among you)!Are married, and forsake their wives for their own lusts
26166
And leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are froward folk.God only destroys those that violate the human rights
11117
For, never would thy Sustainer destroy a community'"' for wrong so long as its people behave righteously , are Muslihoon.Law about open lewdness, be it heterosexual or homosexual
415-16
As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation).And as for the two of you who are guilty thereof, punish them both. And if they repent and improve, then let them be. Lo! Allah is ever relenting, Merciful.Privacy may never be broken, only when human rights are violated (475)
2427-29
O ye who believe! Enter not houses other than your own without first announcing your presence and invoking peace upon the folk thereof. That is better for you, that ye may be heedful. And if ye find no-one therein, still enter not until permission hath been given. And if it be said unto you Go away again, then go away, for it is purer for you. Allah knoweth what ye do.(It is) no sin for you to enter uninhabited houses wherein is comfort for you. Allah knoweth what ye proclaim and what ye hide.3353
O Ye who believe! Enter not the dwellings of the Prophet for a meal without waiting for the proper time, unless permission be granted you. But if ye are invited, enter, and, when your meal is ended, then disperse. Linger not for conversation. Lo! that would cause annoyance to the Prophet, and he would be shy of (asking) you (to go); but Allah is not shy of the truth. And when ye ask of them (the wives of the Prophet) anything, ask it of them from behind a curtain. That is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is not for you to cause annoyance to the messenger of Allah, nor that ye should ever marry his wives after him. Lo! that in Allah's sight would be an enormity.? Last Edit May 04, 2008, 111057 AM by Arnold Yasin ?
-
Sure the English language, like the Farsi language I know has hundreds of expressions, but if the Quran claims to be a book of science, & I've become acquainted with many a Muslim online & offline who claim scientific miracles in the Quran & advanced historical knowledge, so these types of historical ignorance is hard to accept.
I not only referred to animals, but also to other humans like the ancient Egyptians & Mesopotemians. Sin is a loaded word, many things are termed as sin by some & not by others.
Like masturbation,consensual oral sex between two adult partners, consensual sex during menstruation between a monogamous & faithful husband & wife etc.
I gave examples from the animal world to show that other creatures too have indulged in homosexuality from times immemorial, like they have indulged in rape etc.
To prove that humans were absolutely shunning such behavior for until Lut's folks invented it requires evidence from you, not me. As I said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence & I'm not the one making the extra ordinary claim here.
Thanks for providing no evidence. So, let us summarise neither you nor I can prove what Lut said to be right/wrong.
As a side note, it seems you dont even understand what Lut's people did! It is not simply homosexuality.
Is this the best you have against The Quran?!
Let me know when you make the list we discussed. Please dont run away, like many I have challenged with this.
-
Thanks for providing no evidence. So, let us summarise neither you nor I can prove what Lut said to be right/wrong.
As a side note, it seems you dont even understand what Lut's people did! It is not simply homosexuality.
Is this the best you have against The Quran?!
Let me know when you make the list we discussed. Please dont run away, like many I have challenged with this.
Hi Wakas,
I fully understand what Lut's people did, homosexuality, neglecting wives, wild orgies & other debauchery-its not me making extraordinary claims, its Lut. Seeing how homosexuality is present in all animals, & all sorts of sexual practices is present in all ancient societies, Lut claiming "most" is absurd.
I have made another thread, please respond.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599413.0
-
The Quran is full of scientific & historical errors & mistakes, simply chock full for that little book. http//www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/SKM/contradictions.htm
Many have been found by many scholars, however, Muslim apologists twist & turn words & meanings to cover up such errors & inadequacies.
I have found many on many sites.
Peace
Are the scientific and historical errors on faithfreedom based on old translations of the quran and old tafsirs, or are they based on quran without translation? Because no translation can be infallible since mankind are always bound to make mistakes. So my question to you is, are the scientific and historical errors based on the Arabic words, or are they based on english translations of the Quran?
If the scientific and historical errors on faithfreedom are based on english translations, they can never be perfect, just like a copy of Human being can never be 100% like a human. Let me give you an example
When scientists try to copy the human body, they can only make machines/robots which are artifical materials and have mechanical brains (computers). By mechanical brains i mean the computers in the robots. The scientists can never make a copy of human being which looks 100% like a human. So imagine somebody saying that since a robot does not have the ability to think like a human (since it does not have an organical brain), the robot is full of errors and therefore all humans are full of errors. As you can see, judging human beings by a robot (copy of human beings), it would not be a illogical criteria. And translations of the quran can be compared to robots. The translations of the quran are not the true version of the quran, the translations are just a copy, just like a robot is just a copy of human being.
If someone wanted to do a scientific study to find errors in human beings, do you think the most logical thing to do would be to use a copy of human beings, to use a Robot?
Or would using a human being be the most logical thing to do in the scientific study?
So do you think if someone wanted to do a scientific study to find errors in the quran, the most logical thing to do would be to use a copy (translation) of the Quran?
Or would using the Arabic words be the most logical thing to do in the scientific study?As for proof of other people's lewdness, there's no such proof possible simply because lewdness like beauty is subjective, how do I show proof of someone's beauty being greater than all other folks?
Yes, there is a possible proof. Let me give you an example. Imagine 2 towns. In the first town, it lives 100 000 people, and every person there commits lewdness (rape) once a day, while in the second town it lives 100 000 persons, and only 1 person there (1 of 100 000) commit lewdness (rape) once a day. Which of the towns commit lewdness most? The answer is crystal clear, the first town commits more lewdness than the second. Therefore we can easily see that when the different towns are compared to eachother, the first town commits more lewdness (rape) than the second town. This is totally objective and can be seen from the proofs when both of the towns are compared to eachother.
And when it comes to beauty it is not only subjective. Beauty can be objective as well. For instance, science now tells us that people that have more symmetry often are more beautiful than people with less symmetry in their face and bodies. You can read more about this below
http//www.jyi.org/volumes/volume6/issue6/features/feng.html
Do you think it is subjective or objective that Penelope cruz and Jessica Alba have beautiful faces? In my opinion it is not subjective, but objective. And i think no one would disagree that they both have a beautiful face?
And when it comes to inner beauty (good personality), that is totally objective. For example, we can compare Hitler with Gandhi. Do you think it is subjective or objective that Gandhi had more inner beauty (was a better human being) than Hitler?
-
Hi Wakas,
I fully understand what Lut's people did, homosexuality, neglecting wives, wild orgies & other debauchery-its not me making extraordinary claims, its Lut. Seeing how homosexuality is present in all animals, & all sorts of sexual practices is present in all ancient societies, Lut claiming "most" is absurd.
I have made another thread, please respond.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599413.0
Peace.
You are saying that lewdness of the "people of lut" being the most is wrong because animals commit lewdness too. Why has animals anything do to with the "people of lut"? If you want to find out which country in the world has the highest rate of murder, do you compare the murder rates in the Usa with the murder rates of the animalis that live in the deserts of Africa? Your logic was indeed strange.
-
780
And Lot, he said to his people "Do you commit lewdness such as none of those of the worlds had done before?"Just my 2 cents in my dialect (maghreb), we use to say that kind of thing when someone did a gross sin, not meaning that no one did it, but just to amplifie it.
For example
the daughter of X had relation with Y wich is married.
Then we say the daughter of X did what no one did before!
Is it that that difficult to understand, The One locks who He wants heart's.
Peace -
As a side note, it seems you dont even understand what Lut's people did! It is not simply homosexuality.
That's the biggest misconception about the Lot story. Some notes I gathered before
They are called musrifeen in the context of them preferring men over ladies, hence exceeding the limits (781). They are also called fasiqeen/transgressors( 2174). 1716, 259, and 649 are good verses for fasiqeen, which all help us understand what these guys were doing. So, even if they were straight, it would not matter. They would still be zalimeen/wicked/unjust, committers of al fahisha/lewdness, musrifeen/those who exceed the limits, etc.
what did these people do? They tried to force Lot and his family out of town BECAUSE they (Lot's company) wished to be pure - 782 Their response to reason/sound judgment (117 was to banish Lot.
-
Hi Wakas,
I fully understand what Lut's people did, homosexuality, neglecting wives, wild orgies & other debauchery-its not me making extraordinary claims, its Lut. Seeing how homosexuality is present in all animals, & all sorts of sexual practices is present in all ancient societies, Lut claiming "most" is absurd.
I have made another thread, please respond.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599413.0
No, it is not "absurd", perhaps "unverifiable" at most. Also, see the reasons mentioned before about understanding exactly what is being referred to, from whose perspective and the issue if free-choice etc.
Also, you have requested me to answer on your threads etc but I am waiting for you to list your strongest objections to The Quran for all of us to see. The reason I prefer this method, as it helps expose the truth. When I have challenged others before, they run away and do not answer, and the reason is quite simple, if they truly had solid objections against The Quran, it would be easy to provide a list, but maybe you are an exception.... we shall see. The longer you run away, the more obvious the reason behind your aversion will become. As I said, personal message me when you have made such a list of your strongest objections.
-
Peace "Fawzia" and all,
The simplest and IMO only way to resolve this issue is to look at WHO THE QURAN IS ADDRESSING by saying "YOU have sx with rijaal amongst all aalameen". whos this you? is it addressed at homosexual humans which we know now have subtle PHYSICAL differences from heterosexual men as well n therefore cannot logically fall under the category of RIJAAL at all
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Biological_differences_in_gay_men_and_lesbians
If your from India or Pakistan you know theres a term "khusra" used for what are classifed as homosexual men in Europe. If these are not RIJAAL then it follows tht those are not the people whor being referred to in tht verse. Thats why GOD IMU is referring in tht verse to US HETEROSEXUAL MEN AND WOMEN. if we go against our nature to do such then i think tht is wrong. MOREOVER ALL COMMANDS IN THE QURAN ARE NEITHER FOR THE JINN NOR ANY OTHER INTELLIGENT BEINGS INC HOMOSEXUAL MEN AND WOMEN EXCEPT RIJAAL N NISAA(HETERO MEN AND WOMEN) or perhaps more research would even show that these Quranic terms are even more restricted but thats the best according to current knowledge we have. GOD Bless! -
... look at WHO THE QURAN IS ADDRESSING by saying "YOU have sx with rijaal amongst all aalameen". whos this you? is it addressed at homosexual humans which we know now have subtle PHYSICAL differences from heterosexual men as well n therefore cannot logically fall under the category of RIJAAL at all
What do you mean by that? That homosexual men and women are not rijaal? Where did you get that from?
-
Peace "sarah",
What do you mean by that? That homosexual men and women are not rijaal? Where did you get that from?
JK- 1st of all women are not Rijaal but Nisaa ,i believe we can agree on that. As for homosexual men there is a separate term at least in the Urdu language theyr termed as "khusray" not "adami/marad" the latter of which would be "rijaal" in arabic. it all depends on the classification method. I prefer to classify homosexual men and women as SEPRATE sexual categories altogether like gays and lesbians. that would solve all this problems since how can GOD punish someone for naturally being sexually attracted to someone coz his/her body is MAE THT WAY. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "sarah",
JK- 1st of all women are not Rijaal but Nisaa ,i believe we can agree on that. As for homosexual men there is a separate term at least in the Urdu language theyr termed as "khusray" not "adami/marad" the latter of which would be "rijaal" in arabic. it all depends on the classification method. I prefer to classify homosexual men and women as SEPRATE sexual categories altogether like gays and lesbians. that would solve all this problems since how can GOD punish someone for naturally being sexually attracted to someone coz his/her body is MAE THT WAY. GOD Bless!
What it is in urdu is not relevant, secondly, this dichotomy between gay and straight was probably not as concrete as it is now in the West. What evidence do you have that rijaal only refers to straight men? What about bisexual men?
-
Peace "sarah"
What it is in urdu is not relevant, secondly, this dichotomy between gay and straight was probably not as concrete as it is now in the West. What evidence do you have that rijaal only refers to straight men? What about bisexual men?
JK- Well it mustve been in the sub continent as even sunni "muslims" there dont go out killing "khusray". As for your latter qs i can also ask you what evidence is there that rijaal refers to all humans who have a penis? GOD Bless!
-
well, when use the word 'nisaa' we mean women, with no mention of their sexual orientation, or whether they are gender conforming, or how they like to dress, etc. We most definitely don't say that 'nisaa' only refers to heterosexual women. similarly, how do we get rijaal= hetero man?
-
Peace "sarah",
well, when use the word 'nisaa' we mean women, with no mention of their sexual orientation, or whether they are gender conforming, or how they like to dress, etc. We most definitely don't say that 'nisaa' only refers to heterosexual women. similarly, how do we get rijaal= hetero man?
JK- Thats exactly my point. What do you define "woman" as? is a human being a woman if she has a vagina? is that enough to qualify a human being as a woman? same id ask for a man. i think many people need to think on their classifications here before judging a whole group of people who can be very kind and caring and do not harm anyone condemning them all for an "evil sin" when the commands dont even apply to them. GOD Bless!
