Gay and Muslim?
-
But if we look attentively at the background of homoproscription in the muslim sphere as we can grasp it today, I am afraid that that is very much so please do not confuse us with women, we belong on the top not with them. Do not spoil the bort for the whole of us. That claim coming from the mass of powerless "muslim" men lead by the overrligiousity that gurantees them, right from heaven, the absolute assuredness of their belonging to the top, and in order for anybody to beling to the top, there must necessarirly be a bottom part Women are the providentially there to be picked and entitled bottom part, no pun intended.
Who knows, we may get to that situation where males get also their bottom part, and the top is kept for the very, very, very top.
So indeed, sex is a very obvious field in whcih power battles are held. And Muslims are at the front of the battles for bottom power. So women, muslim in women societies will have it very difficult for a long time to come, while overreligious males hold on to the special relationship between male chauvinism and heavenly designs.
well fitting pun, no pun intended! Definitely, it's going to be a long battle to get to equal ground, doesn't help that there are centuries of such to overcome but given that brawn is not as useful as it used to be along with the other unique changes in the way we do and see things, I'm cautiously optimistic.peace
-
The verses can't mean what you think they mean, as demonstrated by the exact same words used in other places in AQ.
Salam
What I'm writing about? confused
Am I writing about 415 or about the "nature of offence for sexual intercourse" in (7029-31)?
(ie. the words "guilty of sexual intercourse"; "unlawful sexual intercourse is a guilt punishable by whipping", and therefore "whether gay is committing unlawful sexual intercourse" and should receive the same punishment)
Try read again, slowly.
continue..
It is clear that Allah is lenient with homosexual, PROVIDED, they reform and restrain themselves.
If they repent and amend, then leave them alone.
otherwise, I believe they must be punished with the same punishment in (241-2), ie. based on the "NATURE OF OFFENCE" - "Sexual Intercourse".
found guilty of <- nature of offence - "sexual intercourse" - guilty
sexual intercourse <- Comparison - (7029-31) above - Can gay commit sexual intercourse?Guilty for "what you did", not for "who you are".
(e.g. punishments for unintentional murder or accidental death)
This is similar in any criminal prosecution or any principle of jurisprudence (including Islamic Jurisprudence), ie. prosecution based on the "nature of offence", not based on the "offenders". Under normal circumstances, the offenders are irrelevant to any criminal prosecution, even if you are so and so influential person or celebrities.
Therefore, regardless of straight or homosexual and as long it is the offence of "sexual intercourse", sura (415-16) says punish them, and sura (241-2) says what is their punishment; "... a Book whose verses are perfected and then presented in detail..." (111)
and made obligatory
lash each one of them with a hundred lashes
and DO NOT be taken by pity for them
in the deen of Allah
if you should believe in Allah and the Last DayAND logically....
How come sexual intercourse between man and woman is grievous, and sexual intercourse between man and man is okay, natural or blessed? hmm
"what you did" = same offence, ie. sexual intercourse
"who you are" = men and women = guilty, men and men = not guilty?I don't understand your logic... nope
as you can see in (7029-31), they are not guilty because of being a man or woman, but because of committing "unlawful sexual intercourse" and which shall be punishable by whipping. Similarly, being a gay is not an offence, but committing "unlawful sexual intercourse" is an offence.
Guilty for "what you did", not for "who or what you are".
Accordingly and if they are committing the same offence of unlawful sexual intercourse, the "punishment shall also be the same!". They are committing the same unlawful sexual contact and penetration. It is the same offence of "unlawful sexual intercourse", regardless of whether they are straight or homosexual.
Now, how your comment can be related to the above discussion? confused
If they repent and amend , then leave them alone. GOD is Redeemer, Merciful.
Perhaps the word that makes the most sense is improve. Note that this word limits the possible meanings of 416.
Amend and improve are synonymous, but the word "improve" fits in all places and is a tad clearer.
Funny!
you must be very confused.
Peace group
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
My comments are in purple.
Salam
What I'm writing about? confused
Am I writing about 415 or about the "nature of offence for sexual intercourse" in (7029-31)?
Let's look at them both, sequentially.
(ie. the words "guilty of sexual intercourse"; "unlawful sexual intercourse is a guilt punishable by whipping", and therefore "whether gay is committing unlawful sexual intercourse" and should receive the same punishment)
Okay, let's try it your way
2419 As for those who enjoy that spreads among those who have believed, they will have a painful retribution in the world and the Hereafter. And GOD knows while you do not know.
If this doesn't make sense, it would seem that there is a glaring flaw in the logic that you are presenting.
Now, let's look at 7029-31
7029 And those who keep covered their private parts.
7030 Except around their spouses or those maintained by their oaths, there is no blame.
7031 Whoever seeks anything beyond this, they are the transgressors.6143 Eight in pairs from the lambs two, and from the goats two. Say "Is it the two males that He forbade or the two females, or what the wombs of the two females bore? Inform me if you are truthful!"
7030 doesn't say spouses...it says pairs. Although a spouse is a pair, pair is more inclusive than spouse--it would include the pair of one who is homosexual.
Try read again, slowly.
otherwise, I believe they must be punished with the same punishment in (241-2), ie. based on the "NATURE OF OFFENCE" - "Sexual Intercourse".
242 states the punishment for adultery (100 lashes). 415 and 416 state punishments other than lashing for a different crime.
415 And those of your women who commit lewdness, you shall bring four witnesses over them from among you; if they bear witness, then you shall restrict them in the homes until death terminates their lives, or GOD makes for them a way out.
416 And the two men who commit it from among you, you shall trouble them. If they repent and amend, then leave them alone. GOD is Redeemer, Merciful.
242 The adulteress and the adulterer, you shall lash each of them with one hundred lashes, and do not let any pity overtake you regarding the system of GOD if you believe in GOD and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.
Guilty for "what you did", not for "who you are".
(e.g. punishments for unintentional murder or accidental death)
This is similar in any criminal prosecution or any principle of jurisprudence (including Islamic Jurisprudence), ie. prosecution based on the "nature of offence", not based on the "offenders". Under normal circumstances, the offenders are irrelevant to any criminal prosecution, even if you are so and so influential person or celebrities.
Therefore, regardless of straight or homosexual and as long it is the offence of "sexual intercourse", sura (415-16) says punish them, and sura (241-2) says what is their punishment; "... a Book whose verses are perfected and then presented in detail..." (111)
AND logically....
How come sexual intercourse between man and woman is grievous, and sexual intercourse between man and man is okay, natural or blessed? hmm
"what you did" = same offence, ie. sexual intercourse
"who you are" = men and women = guilty, men and men = not guilty?I don't disagree that those who are found guilty of misconduct of the specified type are punished according to the crime. What I DO disagree with is that you are glossing over the fact that for any temporal punishment to occur, the accused must have no fewer than four witnesses attesting to the crime. A witness is one who has witnessed the crime with their own senses!
I don't understand your logic... nope
There is no "my" logic...only logic. yes
as you can see in (7029-31), they are not guilty because of being a man or woman, but because of committing "unlawful sexual intercourse" and which shall be punishable by whipping. Similarly, being a gay is not an offence, but committing "unlawful sexual intercourse" is an offence.
Guilty for "what you did", not for "who or what you are".
I never argued against this; btw, are you familiar with a straw man argument?
Accordingly and if they are committing the same offence of unlawful sexual intercourse, the "punishment shall also be the same!". They are committing the same unlawful sexual contact and penetration. It is the same offence of "unlawful sexual intercourse", regardless of whether they are straight or homosexual.
Now, how your comment can be related to the above discussion? confused
My comments may serve, ISA, to those that have eyes to see and brains to reason that traditional understandings and interpretations on this matter are more traditional than truthful. My comments can be verified by juxtaposing words in AQ; the Qur'an is the reference for what I write.
Funny!
3918 The ones who listen to what is being said, and then follow the best of it. These are the ones whom GOD has guided, and these are the ones who possess intelligence.
Peace group
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
I don't disagree that those who are found guilty of misconduct of the specified type are punished according to the crime. What I DO disagree with is that you are glossing over the fact that for any temporal punishment to occur, the accused must have no fewer than four witnesses attesting to the crime. A witness is one who has witnessed the crime with their own senses!
Salam
First part..
I don't disagree that those who are found guilty of misconduct of the specified type are punished according to the crime.
So there is no contradiction with what I'm saying; ie. Guilty for "what you did", not for "who or what you are". Simple logic, anyone could understand this.
and second part
What I DO disagree with is that you are glossing over the fact that for any temporal punishment to occur, the accused must have no fewer than four witnesses attesting to the crime. A witness is one who has witnessed the crime with their own senses!
Even if the words did mean what you think (try substituting your definition in all places where the word occurs, lol), no punishment is applied without four witnesses! Do you dispute about the witnesses?
Interesting, you don't know the difference between the "Procedural Law" and "Substantive Law", and treat the "Procedural Law" as if it is the "Substantive Law" relating to the offence itself, and yet, still be able to say...
are you familiar with a straw man argument?
My comments may serve, ISA, to those that have eyes to see and brains to reason that traditional understandings and interpretations on this matter are more traditional than truthful. My comments can be verified by juxtaposing words in AQ; the Qur'an is the reference for what I write.
Do you?
This is fun. yes
Lastly, proof...
the accused must have no fewer than four witnesses attesting to the crime. A witness is one who has witnessed the crime with their own senses!
I wonder why the accused want to convict himself, ie. by bringing his witnesses to attest his own crime. confused
That should be very easy, and not just four, but 100 or more witnesses. LOL! laugh
I don't understand your logic.
you must be very confused.
Peace group
-
3918 The ones who listen to what is being said, and then follow the best of it. These are the ones whom GOD has guided, and these are the ones who possess intelligence.
Peace group
Salam
It is so true, listen to the Qur'an .. otherwise
I will turn away from My signs
those who are arrogant upon the earth
without right <- (1117) (1039)
and if they should see every sign
they will not believe in it
And if they see the way of consciousness
they will not adopt it as a way
but if they see the way of error
they will adopt it as a way
That is because they have denied Our signs
and they were heedless of them
(7146)But those who deny Our signs
We will progressively lead them
from where they do not know
(7182) (6844-45) (4069-70)May Allah guide us all to truth and keep us on the straight path.
Peace group
-
Yulianna, you say
Quote
To say marriage is sex is to say marriage is all about self gratification and it clearly is not. Sex is a part of what takes place in a marriage and god has made it lawful between a husband and a wife, but it's not the one and the same. That's not usually the first thing you think of when you find a partner is it? Don't we look for companion above all else?
Huruf,
Since when did I post that?You misquoted someone else's post.
And my name is Yuliana, with one n only.
-
Salaam,
"Straw man discussion" occurred at several parts of this thread. And sarcasm flows rampage.
God bless you
-
Huruf,
Since when did I post that?You misquoted someone else's post.
And my name is Yuliana, with one n only.
Indeed, Yuliana, my mistake. Sorry for it. It happens to me sometimes when I only quote a part of a message that I make mistakes and mostly I catch them myself, but obviously not all. No, you did not say that. I think it was learning truth81
Sorry again.
Salaam
-
Again I say that Allah did not create gay people he created people as following the natural order however some of whom have developed gay tendencies. The way you describe it is as if Allah have created people with the gays having a different set of DNA and genetic code. Sorry to say there is nothing to support your theory as no gay gene has ever been found so there are other factors that determine sexuality.
Allah is innocent of your accusations. He knows full well what type of human to create in what shape and form and what they must be able to do to procreate to keep humanity going. Allah did not slip up and create homosexuals because that would go against his plan.
Homosexuals cannot procreate naturally so how is being in a homosexual relationship natural?? Gay sex is not natural either since a man will need to use another man's back passage for sex how is it natural to use a orifice which is used to discharge excrement?? Sorry to be graphic but I need to Get the point across. There is nothing natural about that. Intact there is more chance you will catch disease, as proved by higher numbers of gay men passing on HIV. Its higher than that for straight people.
There is nothing natural about homosexuality and gay sex. Its a cause of environment, influence and learnt behaviour all of which goes towards shaping a person's sexuality. Therefore it is something more psychological and mental than physical or biological since there is nothing to support the idea thast people are born gay.
Peace Then who created intersex people? Who created people who have the chromosomes of a woman, the ovaries of a woman, but external (outside) genitals that appear male? Who created people born with mosaic genetics (a mix of XX and XY)? Who created males and females that are unable to procreate naturally? Who created homosexual animals (of which humans are one species that show this behaviour)? Who created males with micro penises (so small they are unable to procreate and unable to achieve penetration)? These are physical and genetic differences not just psychological.
-
as proved by higher numbers of gay men passing on HIV. Its higher than that for straight people.
It is only in Western countries that HIV transmission is higher for gay people than straight. In sub Saharan Africa nearly 30 million are HIV positive and as many as 2 million people die a year as a result of severely weakened immune systems. The majority are heterosexual not homosexual. In the last 10 years the majority of new HIV patients world wide have been heterosexual not homosexual. Women also contract HIV so it is not necessarily from male to male sex.
-
"Straw man discussion" occurred at several parts of this thread.
Salam
Indeed, a "straw person" ... laugh
A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. The misrepresentation can be intentional or accidental. It is possible to unintentionally misrepresent an opponent's argument by failing to understand it in the first place and honestly communicating what one (wrongly) thinks is the actual argument.; Wikipedia
(refer here)
I believe both of you must be very confused.
Read from the start and there is not a single person who is talking or supporting the ideas of Muslim should oppress homosexual.
All are agreed that there should be no oppression, respect them as human beings, and are talking about "What is the rule in the Qur'an?".
Issue of this thread
I wanted to ask if a person can be gay and Muslim?
(the statements thereafter are the "supporting statements" suggesting the importance of this issue, and why the Sunni and Shia should treat them as a Muslim and human beings - which is not necessary since many here are not Sunni or Shia, and are not supporting any oppression)ie. the issue of whether gay is a muslim or non-muslim?
if a muslim, why? which ayat? (refer here)
if a non-muslim, why? which ayat? (refer here)
and if relating to a statement that can be a muslim because of "feelings" (refer here) or "natural" (refer here).. then the issue whether these factors or elements can change God's rules? (refer here and here)
and what is the rule relating to homosexuality? (refer here, which no one is willing to answer, and rather wish to treat as if it is never existed in the Qur'an)
and...
Now, how your comment can be related to the above discussion? confused
Peace
-
Peace,
And we ought not to throw stones in glass houses here.
God bless you
-
Peace,
What is it you want to prove? That I fear for you that you will end up in Hell. Well I do and it is because I usually care for all people even if they trespass the limitations.
Anyway, enough personal quarrel in here. I will ignore you since you are out to hurt me, intentionally or unintentionally.
-
What's actually going on here in this thread is a very common case of human Ego. We all have it and it is giving us all trouble... it's just that we tend to not know it. One way the Ego works is that it forces us to react, react and react, emotionally... it's basically a defense mechanism of the mind. Our challenge is to take control back from our own mind/Ego. It can be done to great extents, but it requires deliberate work... but not antagonistic strife. There are meditations/ways to let us obtain peaceful freedom from the reign of our mind... while keeping the mind as the great tool it is...
-
Salaam,
You are so right, Zulf.
God bless you
-
What's actually going on here in this thread is a very common case of human Ego. We all have it and it is giving us all trouble... it's just that we tend to not know it. One way the Ego works is that it forces us to react, react and react, emotionally... it's basically a defense mechanism of the mind.
Our challenge is to take control back from our own mind/Ego. It can be done to great extents, but it requires deliberate work... but not antagonistic strife.
There are meditations/ways to let us obtain peaceful freedom from the reign of our mind... while keeping the mind as the great tool it is...
Peace Zulf
5810
Lo! Conspiracy is only of the devil, that he may vex those who believe;
but he can harm them not at all unless by Allah's leave.
In Allah let believers put their trust.
Let our Free-Minds surrender absolute to the Soul adhering to the words of the Lord of
the worlds Allah before it becomes Freaky-Minds
-
as proved by higher numbers of gay men passing on HIV. Its higher than that for straight people.
It is only in Western countries that HIV transmission is higher for gay people than straight. In sub Saharan Africa nearly 30 million are HIV positive and as many as 2 million people die a year as a result of severely weakened immune systems. The majority are heterosexual not homosexual. In the last 10 years the majority of new HIV patients world wide have been heterosexual not homosexual. Women also contract HIV so it is not necessarily from male to male sex.
Because the are less gays so less gays produce HIV.
Yes, the reason is lack of immunity so that is to be blamed for HIV.
But it still doesn't change the fact that anal sex is easy to cause HIV.