Gay and Muslim?
-
Thanks for the links )
Back to the topic.Literally after magrib until some days maybe, I'm busy.
-
Salam
Okay, it is two hours difference if in Surabaya or Gresik, that means almost Maghrib.
So does it referring to "husband and wife" or "marriages"?
Peace
I live around that area and now the time is 1607.
Yes it does.
-
So does it referring to "husband and wife" and "marriages"?
Yes it does.
Salam
Good, I went to Indonesia almost every year. )
So... you agree that "spouses" is referring to "husband and wife" and "marriages".
Therefore, can you agree that the following verse is referring to marriages?
And those who guard their private parts <- ALL human beings have private parts
Except from their spouses <- referring to marriagesPeace
-
Good, I went to Indonesia almost every year.
Good, may I visit Malaysia some day for see Petronas Building.
So... you agree that "spouses" is referring to "husband and wife" and "marriages".
Therefore, can you agree that the verse is referring to marriages?
Spouses is not enough for husband-wife.We see same-gender also as spouses.
-
Spouses is not enough for husband-wife.We see same-gender also as spouses.
Salam,
No problem, it is just two hours flights and the tickets is cheap.
It doesn't matter if it refers to same gender marriage or etc.
It is irrelevant at this point of time.
What I wish to find out now is it referring to "marriages" according to the Qur'an.
If it is, can you agree that the verse is referring to "marriages" according to the Qur'an?
Peace.
-
No problem, it is just two hours flights and the tickets is cheap.
Unfortunaly Rupiah's exchange rate is below Ringgit ;D.What place you visits in Indonesia.I don't live in Surabaya nor Gresik, but I still in East Java.I visit Surabaya every year for a vacation.
If it is, can you agree that the verse is referring to "marriages" according to the Qur'an?
If 235-6, it's not.This verse more talk about zina prevention or ethics of do sexual intercouse.
-
If 235-6, it's not.This verse more talk about zina prevention or ethics of do sexual intercouse.
Salam
There are few places, Surabaya, Gresik, Jogja etc and my family rooted back from Indonesia during 1,000-1300+
We leave out that issue later, what's relevant is whether that verse includes "marriages according to the Qur'an"
What I wish to find out now is it referring to "marriages" according to the Qur'an.
Peace
-
There are few places, Surabaya, Gresik, Jogja etc and my family rooted back from Indonesia during 1,000-1300+
This means you still a Javanese like me.You're wong Jowo D.
Malay ethnic in Indonesia more concentrated in Bawean, Riau, Bangka, Belitung and some parts in Sumatra, Kalimantan and Sulawesi.Ok we will talk about this later, just do PM if necessary.
What I wish to find out now is it referring to "marriages" according to the Qur'an.
Term marriage/nikah is wide in context.We talk about leglitas of homosexual in this thread.So what contexs you want to discuss??
-
Term marriage/nikah is wide in context.We talk about leglitas of homosexual in this thread.So what contexs you want to discuss??
Salam
I'm originally rooted from Yemen, Hadhramaut and Palestine, which my great great grandfather make a hijrah to Indonesia for Da'wah, maybe before Islam came to Indonesia.
Okay we stop here, and you can continue by answering the following issue
Whether the verse in (7029-31) is referring to "marriages according to the Qur'an"
and you might also explain why you are saying the context of (235-6) is related to zina prevention.
Certainly will the believers have succeeded
They who are during their prayer
humbly submissive
And they who turn away
from ill speech
And they who are observant
of zakah
And they who guard
their private parts
Except from their wives
or those their right hands possess
for indeed, they will not be blamed
But whoever seeks beyond that
then those are the transgressors
And they who are to their trusts
and their promises attentive
And they who carefully maintain
their prayers
Those are the inheritors
Who will inherit al-Firdaus
They will abide therein eternally
(231-11)Peace
-
As you see, the verses in the Quran didn't follow the index by orders.I mean a verse in a surat, may have a continuations in another surat.
"Zena prevention" is my own term and yu may have your own
According to me, most of Quranic verses not talking about fiqh-fatwa but how to became a proper being.Ok "zina prevention" term is almost leave the topic.So what we must discuss is homosexual is legal or not according to Quran.
-
"Zena prevention" is my own term and yu may have your own
According to me, most of Quranic verses not talking about fiqh-fatwa but how to became a proper being.Ok "zina prevention" term is almost leave the topic.So what we must discuss is homosexual is legal or not according to Quran.
Salam
Okay, then we leave out other issue and focus on this question.
Okay we stop here, and you can continue by answering the following issue
Whether the verse in (7029-31) is referring to "marriages according to the Qur'an"
It doesn't matter if it refers to same gender marriage or etc.
It is irrelevant at this point of time.
Peace.
-
Yes, so what is your question, brother??
-
Yes, so what is your question, brother??
Salam
Let us review our discussion.
(main issue)This is your conclusion.
This is what you have agreed (see reference).
The word "mates" is referring to "spouses" and "marriage according to the Qur'an". Nonetheless, homosexual can also use their private parts to anyone whether or not there is marriage.
No. 1. YES, you agree homosexuals "can use" their private parts to "anyone"; marriages and unions which are not marriages according to the Qur'an.
No. 2. YES, you agree the word "mates" mean "spouses"
No. 3. YES, you agree the word "spouses" means "husband and wife" and "marriages".
No. 4. YES, you agree the word marriages" means "marriages according to the Qur'an", except in (235-6), ie. zina prevention.
No. 5. YES, you agree that the issue of zina prevention in (235-6) is your own personal terms and does not relate to the Qur'an. It should not be discussed.
No. 6. Therefore and from point No. 5, (235-6) should be the same as (7019-35), ie. context relating to transgressions;
Is this correct?
REFERENCE
Firstly,
On the issue whether homosexual can use their private parts to anyone.
YES, you agree homosexuals "can use" their private parts to "anyone"; marriages and unions which are not marriages according to the Qur'an.
Reference
Therefore your answer is B; ie. "Homosexuals "can use" their private parts to "anyone" (ie. same-sex marriage, etc.)"
Secondly,
On the issue of whether "mates" is referring to "spouses"?
YES, you agree the word "mates" mean "spouses"
Reference
Please use common sense, what I mean mate is spouse of course
If we look by the conteks of the verses, mates (zawaj) is spouse.
Thirdly,
On the issue whether the word "spouses" is referring to "husband and wife" and "marriages".
YES, you agree the word "spouses" means "husband and wife" and "marriages".
Reference
So does it referring to "husband and wife" and "marriages"?
Yes it does.
Fourthly,
On the issue whether the word "spouses" is referring to "marriages according to the Qur'an"
YES, you agree the word marriages" means "marriages according to the Qur'an", except in (235-6), ie. zina prevention.
Reference
What I wish to find out now is it referring to "marriages" according to the Qur'an.
If it is, can you agree that the verse is referring to "marriages" according to the Qur'an?
If 235-6, it's not. This verse more talk about zina prevention or ethics of do sexual intercouse.
As you can see from the above, you are only denying on (235-6), and on the issue of zina prevention. You have no objection relating to (7019-35) as referring to "marriages according to the Qur'an".
Fifthly,
On the issue whether the word "spouses" in (235-6) is not related to zina prevention.
YES, you agree that the issue of zina prevention in (235-6) is your own personal terms and not related to the Qur'an. It should not be discussed; ie. context relating to transgression.
Reference
"Zena prevention" is my own term
Sixthly,
Comparison
|
Certainly will the believers have succeeded
They who are during their prayer
humbly submissive
And they who turn away
from ill speech
And they who are observant
of zakah
And they who guard
their private parts
Except from their wives/spouses
or those their right hands possess
for indeed, they will not be blamed
But whoever seeks beyond that
then those are the transgressors
And they who are to their trusts
and their promises attentive
And they who carefully maintain
their prayers
Those are the inheritors
Who will inherit al-Firdaus
They will abide therein eternally
(231-11)|
|
Indeed, mankind was created anxious
When evil touches him, impatient
And when good touches him, withholding
Except the observers of prayer
Those who are constant in their prayer
And those within whose wealth is a known right
For the petitioner and the deprived
And those who believe in the Day of Recompense
And those who are fearful of the punishment of their Lord
Indeed, the punishment of their Lord is not that from which one is safe
And those who guard
their private parts
Except from their wives/spouses
or those their right hands possess
for indeed, they are not to be blamed
But whoever seeks beyond that
then they are the transgressors
And those who are to their trusts
and promises attentive
And those who are in their testimonies upright
And those who maintain their prayer
They will be in gardens, honored
(7019-35)Peace
-
I am really enjoying this, it is like watching a tennis grand slam being played without any balls
Bing bang
Bang bingbatting the air.
Salaam
But is is not even amusing...
just utter nonsense...
-
But is is not even amusing...
just utter nonsense...
I couldn't agree more. It's turning into an earthdom vs muslims thread jedi. I'm not even getting what the argument is about....
I have a suggestion for brothers earthdom and muslims please take your discussion off this thread...debate it among yourselves.....and then you can come back and tell us how the debate concluded.
We are certainly interested in knowing how the debate concluded....but not in the name-calling that you both are getting into...
-
Salam
Sorry.. but this is the issue
Rules relating to "private parts" in the Qur'an (main issue) ...
ISSUE
Whether...
Allah has permitted "marriage" and has forbidden everything else.
if yes, then...
Therefore, "same-sex-marriage" is prohibited since marriage is between man/woman
and there is no such things as using "private parts" to anyone other than
"wives" or "spouses".and whereas...
EARTHDOM'S ARGUMENTS
Earthdom's argument is..
"Homosexuals "can use" their private parts to "anyone" (ie. same-sex marriage, etc.)"
Reason Homosexuality is not specifically forbidden in the Qur'an
What God blame for transgression??
I already told you, even @Abdul-Hadi also said to u.What God condemns in 780 is faahisyah not homosexual.
Is homosexual the faahisyah in that verse??No absolutely not
-First ayat 1660 (old lady also been punished for faahisyah)
-Second homosexual already happens before Luth era.If homosexual is faahishah then Luth and God Himself contradict the fact.My counterarguments against Earthdom (refer here)
How about sexual intercourse with animals?
Can human beings make sexual intercourse with chickens? birds? goats? cows? cats?
(Warning!! please buy health insurance to cover costs of surgery before involving with any of these animals, especially cats! I disclaim any responsibility for any wrongful or ridiculous advice from any members in this forum! ;D )Is it faahisyah?
Allah did not mention it in the Qur'an, and people can declare it as their "mates" to escape any prohibitions, or even human laws (defence of lawful religious practices etc.).
Now, do you realize your conclusion that "mates" can be of the same sex (or different sex) means all the rules in "the Qur'an is now self-contradicting"?
All the rules relating to sexual prohibitions in the Qur'an is meaningless?
These rules? (refer here)
Including the rules that say homosexual is a transgression? (ie. the Qur'an is now self contradicting)
In fact, we don't need rules relating to marriages.
Is this your logic?
A self-contradicting Qur'an?
This is what Earthdom have agreed so far.
This is your conclusion.
This is what you have agreed (see reference).
The word "mates" is referring to "spouses" and "marriage according to the Qur'an". Nonetheless, homosexual can also use their private parts to anyone whether or not there is marriage.
No. 1. YES, you agree homosexuals "can use" their private parts to "anyone"; marriages and unions which are not marriages according to the Qur'an.
No. 2. YES, you agree the word "mates" mean "spouses"
No. 3. YES, you agree the word "spouses" means "husband and wife" and "marriages".
No. 4. YES, you agree the word marriages" means "marriages according to the Qur'an", except in (235-6), ie. zina prevention.
No. 5. YES, you agree that the issue of zina prevention in (235-6) is your own personal terms and does not relate to the Qur'an. It should not be discussed.
No. 6. Therefore and from point No. 5, (235-6) should be the same as (7019-35), ie. context relating to transgressions;
MY ARGUMENTS
My argument is...
Homosexuals "must guard" their private parts except to "wives" (ie. marriage)
Reason The Qur'an is not an Encyclopedia and does not need to mention all sexual offences. Allah only mention rules relating "private parts" and ALL HUMAN BEINGS have private parts. Accordingly, this rule applies to all, straight or homosexual. They must use their "private parts" only to their wives/spouses, ie. marriages according to the Qur'an.
(from here)
Therefore, the Qur'an does not need to mention the prohibition of sexual intercourse with animals or all other sexual offences, and at the same time, being fully detailed. That is how verses in the Qur'an is plain, perfect and fully detailed; ie. the "exclusionary principle".
INTRO METHODOLOGY
Alif Lam Ra (This is) a Book
whose verses are made DECISIVE <- eg. La ilaha illa Allah
then are they made PLAIN <- explanation, refer here and (2.67-71)
from the Wise, All-aware
(111)Earthdom's Counterarguments The word in the verse is "mates".
This counterargument is now not valid since Earthdom agree that the actual word is "spouses"
Please use common sense, what I mean mate is spouse of course
If we look by the conteks of the verses, mates (zawaj) is spouse.Spouses is neutral in gender, it can be male or female.
Of course spouse is neutral. Spouse is not a gender. It represents both husband and wife and no gender! Can we say "husband spouse" or "wife spouse"? Is marriage a gender? Male or female, boy or girl, man or woman is gender. Therefore, the word spouse is neutral and must be defined according context of the verses, ie. referring to wives.
refer here, and different translations
http//s10.postimg.org/q7yexo3k9/mates.png
Peace
-
We are certainly interested in knowing how the debate concluded....but not in the name-calling that you both are getting into...
We may play name-calling, but it's litte.Human's patience have some limitation.
But name-calling is not the purpose for our discussion.Therefore, "same-sex-marriage" is prohibited since marriage is between man/womanand there is no such things as using "private parts" to anyone other than
"wives" or "spouses".RED-BLUE Has no correlation.
The example is Beauty salon mostly have female consuments.Is this means male cannot be a consument??http//s10.postimg.org/q7yexo3k9/mates.png
You used human-made definitions for what is marriage-spouses.
Peace
-
Salam
Please explain further, I don't understand your point or what you are trying to object.
By the way.. do you agree with this ayat?
Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an?
If it had been from other than Allah
they would have found within it much contradiction
(482)Do you agree the rules in the Qur'an does not have a contradiction?
Peace.