None in the worlds was homosexual before Lut's people?
-
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!
-
Peace "sarah",
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!
That's a problem, especially when we run into cases of people who are transsexual/ transgender etc. In many places they get mistreated simply because they defy conventional dichotomies.
-
Peace Sarah (lol I feel like I?m talking to myself)
Slightly off topic though about rijal/ nissa
http//switzerland.tigweb.org/discuss/thread/30501/?start=45
rijal , nisaa
an interesting readI?ve heard of this theory before.. thing is, can ?nissa? as the weaker/less independent people be considered male? I don?t think so. it doesn?t seem to work in all occurrences like e.g. 2222, or 2228 nisa meaning as women holds stronger than less independent people and also it couldn?t mean men unless men miraculously menstruate.
I can understand how rijaal can be understood as independent, i.e. rijl = legs so like the one that stands on his legs.. In my culture they shame men who aren?t independent and say he is ?no rijaal?.
Though can it cross between genders?? I don?t think so but maybe in some occurrences? If I understood Arabic grammar maybe I?d know better. I just think it doesn?t always work but the idea seems pleasant however, if it sometimes works is that enough ground for the idea to be accepted? I don?t think so. but I guess it?s something which can be looked into.
Just some thoughts
salam )
-
Peace,
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.
PeaceLikewise, I'll be "the first" to agree!
http//switzerland.tigweb.org/discuss/thread/30501/?start=45
rijal , nisaa
an interesting readEasily dismissed since inheritors can be any age including "dependent" infants; meanings clearly stated and explained...
4176 ...and if they were brethren men and women (Wa 'In Kn 'Ikhwatan Rijlan Wa Nis'an)
so to the male equal luck the two females,
He clarifies God to you that you (not) be misguided and God with all things knowledgeable -
in that case, nisaa refers to humans that are biologically female and are in society, considered to be women. seems more reasonable than the dependent/ independent argument
@Jonny_K, in that case, you have no real reason to exclude women who are not strictly heterosexual. -
Peace "sarah",
That's a problem, especially when we run into cases of people who are transsexual/ transgender etc. In many places they get mistreated simply because they defy conventional dichotomies.
JK- Exactly and thats why we need to redefine or better refine the terms as our knowledge has grown which is not to say that certain people in the past already knew about this and the fact tht Pakistani "muslims" dont punish "khusray", which are if you look at them nothing else but homosexual men, shows that a remnant of that knowledge exists. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "sarah",
in that case, nisaa refers to humans that are biologically female and are in society, considered to be women. seems more reasonable than the dependent/ independent argument
JK- But again what is a biological female human? is the mere fact that one has a reproductive system enough to quality as a biological female?
@Jonny_K, in that case, you have no real reason to exclude women who are not strictly heterosexual.
JK- Even if we accept the definition of a biological female to be a human with reproductive organs it still doesnt mean weve to go by the definition that every female=woman. GOD Bless!
