"Koranists" - how many support them?
-
How many here support Quranists led by Farouk A Peru, and do you agree with his view on Homophilia?
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwkIoETBwxQ&list=PLLJbENTfuMiixmSgzX7XNQ3tSbRtaaOkM&index=1
Peace Be With You
-
How many here support Quranists led by Farouk A Peru, and do you agree with his view on Homophilia?
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwkIoETBwxQ&list=PLLJbENTfuMiixmSgzX7XNQ3tSbRtaaOkM&index=1
Peace Be With You
I don't agree with his linguistic interpretation but I do agree the people of Lot were not destroyed because of homosexuality but their gang raping behavior and their disbelief. What seperated the people of Lot from others was their kindnapping of people and gang raping them.
Lot knoew that when the angels arrived that he would not be able to protect them and knew what will happen and felt powerless and even ashamed. And it did happen as he expected..
-
In other words, you support homophilia?
I expanded on the topic in this thread, please go there instead. http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605033.msg321044#msg321044
Peace Be With You.
-
In other words, you support homophilia?
I expanded on the topic in this thread, please go there instead. http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605033.msg321044#msg321044
Peace Be With You.
Its not important what i support or not. Whats important is what the Quran says or not.
-
How many here support Quranists led by Farouk A Peru, and do you agree with his view on Homophilia?
Not many here share his view in the video. Unfortunately, the content of the video is typical of his research, which frequently contains misleading statements, errors and sloppy research. Here is an analysis
When discussing Quran 781
Refers to usage of verb ita'aa in 243 yet this is a different verb form to 781 - does not point that out.Cites its usage with zakat but the verb form in 781 is NEVER used with zakat out of 200+ occurrences - does not point that out.
Then mentions a DIFFERENT word form, the perfect passive utiya, and claims the phraseology is "absurd" when inserted into 781 - of course it is "absurd" if you insert different words forms into sentences which use another word form!
See http//www.englishpage.com/verbpage/activepassive.htmlTakes 334 literally (even though it is obviously figurative) and fails to realise women can have two hearts within them when pregnant.
Claims later, when explaining the verse according to his view, that when rijaal change location they are single-minded - what rubbish! I'm sure many here who have the independence to move to another location may be in two minds about it, unsure etc. His understanding fails logic, and empirical testing, 4153.Claims that the common understanding of 2437 implies women could be distracted by trade/sale from remembrance of God when firstly Quran is NOT making a declarative statement about rijaal. In fact it is the opposite as it implicitly implies some rijaal are like that, as if they were not there would be no need to say what it does. Secondly, it's rather obvious women could be distracted by trade/sale just as much as men. Men just happen to be doing the vast majority of trading, hence the archetypal statement. Archetypes and archetypal statements are found throughout Quran.
To be honest, I lost interest analysing his presentation at this point. Every point he made thus far had issues. Poor.
Please note, as far as I know, Farouk has never published any comprehensive Quranic analysis on any subject, ever. I'd take what he says with a pinch of salt.
-
Yes, Farouk seem to be playing for the audience, who is laughing, and it does not resemble any real believers gathering. Personally I think the verses are clear enough.
Peace Be With You.
-
Yes, Farouk seem to be playing for the audience, who is laughing, and it does not resemble any real believers gathering. Personally I think the verses are clear enough.
Peace Be With You.
I can not say its not a believers gathering. Many Quranist interpret the Quran linguistically with Ka'ba meaning ankle and Qibla actually meaning this or that or Sujood really means this or that or Haj actually means this or that. They look at the root meaning etc. I have no problem with linguistic interpretation if its done with meaning, context and how it fits with the Quran as a whole. Its when its done alone that I find many problems with it. Linguistic interpretation can be useful as a suppliment. Linguism when done alone complicates matters and makes the debate go in circles.
