Gay and Muslim?
-
As far as I know the people who were born gay cannot help this and how can then God punish them for that?
Peace Friends
the real issue is whether a person can both be gay and muslim......if i am not mistaken.
i would like to elucidate certian verses of Holy Quran and see if it throws any light in context of the context
We also sent Lut. He said to his people 'Will you commit lewdness such as no people in creation ever committed before you? For you come in lust to men in preference to women. No, you are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds' (Qur'an 780-81)
'Of all the creatures in the world, will you approach males, and leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? No, you are a people transgressing (all limits)!' (Qur'an 26165-166)
from the above two verses it is quite clear approaching males is trangression. besides it also clashes with the "natural" order in which God created human beings apart from bringing destruction of family and institution of marriage.
so far i didnt find anything in Holy Quran that favours and if not remains neutral regarding approaching the same sex. the only instance i could find is in the story of prophet lot wherein the inhabitants were inhalilated.
The Qur'an describes that everything has been created in pairs which complement one another. Pairing of male and female is thus part of natural order. on many instances the Qur'an describes the husband/wife relationship as one of love, tenderness, and support.
i dont know if being gay is psychological problem or any other thing, but i certainly do know that Allah created man and then a female as his partner and consort. even all living creatures longs for the opposite sex even if they had to die for it.
hope i am able to throw some light on the topic
may peace and blessing of Allah be upon all.
-
Sorry muslims, your reply actually not replying my post.
I never said if gay is not a man.
Please don't raise a little issue, like gay is not man if you want get to the point.I'm not an underage child, so don't use burden for proofingSalam
No it is not, I am replying to your post or question.
Read for yourself what your wrote.
The term "men" is too general, so in what context.
The term "men"
is too general
so in what contextSee? you say the "term men"
What is the issue?
You are saying the term is "too general"
In other words, you are saying there is "general" and "specific" "term" relating to "men".
and... you need to find out their "context" to differentiate these terms relating to what is "men".
and what did I answer you?
So you don't agree
"Gays" are "Men"?There is no merit in your objection
unless you can prove gays are not menThere is no "general or specific" men in the Qur'an.
There is only "man" or "woman".
Similarly, the Qur'an also speak about "man/ boy/ male" or "woman/ girl/ female". There is no in between or else.
Your question is ridiculous, so as your blank accusations.
You make stupid questions, and then blame others for it. All the times. Very funny laugh
Peace
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
I'll bold a few portions of the following post for discussion, discussion in red.
Peace Friends
the real issue is whether a person can both be gay and muslim......if i am not mistaken.
i would like to elucidate certian verses of Holy Quran and see if it throws any light in context of the context
We also sent Lut. He said to his people 'Will you commit lewdness such as no people in creation ever committed before you? For you come in lust to men in preference to women. No, you are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds' (Qur'an 780-81)
It has been clearly demonstrated that the lewdness--and the word is lewdness--can't be related to homosexuality because homosexuality is found in civilization long before the people of Lot. This can either be accepted, or one can accept that there is suddenly a contradiction in the Qur'an.
Rather than focus on preference of men to women, look at the act--"come in lust". Was acting on lust a righteous action?
'Of all the creatures in the world, will you approach males, and leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates ? No, you are a people transgressing (all limits)!' (Qur'an 26165-166)
Understanding the bolded Arabic word is key. If it means "spouses", then leaving a spouse is adultery. If it means "mates", then leaving a mate is promiscuity/breaking contract or oath/fornication. If the verse had stated "approach other women" instead of "approach other males", the violation was still made. The violation is the bolded part of the sentence. This leads me to believe that homosexuality wasn't central to the violation.
from the above two verses it is quite clear approaching males is trangression. besides it also clashes with the "natural" order in which God created human beings apart from bringing destruction of family and institution of marriage.
so far i didnt find anything in Holy Quran that favours and if not remains neutral regarding approaching the same sex. the only instance i could find is in the story of prophet lot wherein the inhabitants were inhalilated.
It leads one to wonder if any women (other than Lot's wife) or children were destroyed with the inhabitants. We weren't witnesses, so it is difficult to say. If women and children were destroyed, it would be indicate that the reason for destruction was not related to homosexuality.
5338 None can carry the burdens of another.
The Qur'an describes that everything has been created in pairs which complement one another. Pairing of male and female is thus part of natural order. on many instances the Qur'an describes the husband/wife relationship as one of love, tenderness, and support.
A homosexual is also part of a pair. Does a practicing homosexual not have a partner? Is a lesbian a mate for a heterosexual male, or a gay male a mate for a heterosexual woman? Nah!
i dont know if being gay is psychological problem or any other thing, but i certainly do know that Allah created man and then a female as his partner and consort.
may peace and blessing of Allah be upon all.
I just don't find sufficient evidence to say that a homosexual can't be a muslim. It isn't explicitly stated, so why take chances and forbid what is not forbidden? It is an individual and private matter, and does not require interference.
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
Salam
Clear evidence, dispute this.
|
Premise 1|
The Qur'an says men must guard their "private parts" except from their spouses/wives|
Premise 2|
Gays are men and have "private parts"|
|
|
Therefore (rule)|
Gays must guard their "private parts" except from their spouses/wives|
|
Show me an ayat that they gays are exempted from the rule relating to "private parts"?
Where is the ayat that Allah sets them free from this obligation, which others are subject?
Peace
-
Salaam Abdul-Hadi,
As far as I know the people of Lut forced sex upon victims of the same gender and it was not "only" homosexuality but homosexual rape. And apart from that they were highwaymen as far as I can recall.
God bless you
-
Salam
(from here)
Whether Gays are muslim or non muslim is a question of "action" and "i'qtiqad" (creed); ie. "iman" and "amal". Both elements must be present for someone to be called as a Muslim or Non-Muslim. There is no simple rule since human beings are not perfect and Allah want us to continuously improve, that's what matter to Allah. There is no one perfect in this world.
Therefore what they did is not so much for consideration because we don't understand their reasons and they are the only person who really know why they are behaving such ways.
Thus, it is their "i'qtiqad" (creed) that matter, and the relevant question for the issue of whether they are muslim or non muslim is....
The issue is how can someone be a Muslim if he is IQ'TIQAD (creed) NOT TO "surrenders and submits to the laws of God"?
Question/Issue of this thread
I wanted to ask if a person can be gay and Muslim?
Conclusion
being a gay and with an i'tiqad (creed) to reform and obey Allah is a muslim (refer here)
but being a gay with an i'tiqad (creed) to remain as a gay and disobey Allah is a non-muslim (refer here)and similarly...
similarly
being a prostitute with with an i'tiqad (creed) to reform and obey Allah is a muslima
but being a prostitute with an i'tiqad (creed) to remain as a prostitute and disobey Allah is a non-muslimaIt is what's inside of us and how we continuously improving ourselves that matter most to Allah (priority). Based on these elements of "continuous improvement for Allah" (doers of good, to self etc.), some prostitutes are closer to Allah than some ulema, the illegitimate pretender.
Therefore, we cannot easily judge "peoples' behaviours" even if she is a prostitute, and can only discuss the "rules in the Qur'an"; ie. The issue of "What is the rule?"
These were my views, Allah knows best.
Peace
-
First of all...can someone put forward a CONVINCING article to prove that homosexuality is not prohibited in the Koran?
I already made it multiple times
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605749.msg335980#msg335980
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605584.msg332714#msg332714But that just my 2 cents.
Farouk Peru's theory is similiar with mine http//quranistvoices.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/homosexuality-and-the-people-of-lut/
or in his YOUTUBE
Peace
-
Salam
General Rule
And those who guard their private parts <- ALL human beings have private parts, including homosexual
Except from their wives <- referring to marriages
or those their right hands possess
for indeed, they are not to be blamed
But whoever seeks beyond that
then they are the transgressors
(7029-31)Simple question.
Are gay men?
IF YES.. follow this rule.
|
Premise 1|
The Qur'an says men must guard their "private parts" except from their spouses/wives|
Premise 2|
Gays are men and have "private parts"|
|
|
Therefore (rule)|
Gays must guard their "private parts" except from their spouses/wives|
|
OR
Show me an ayat that Allah sets them free from this obligation, which all men are subject.
Simplified..
IF THEN ELSE.
IF gays are men
THEN gays must guard their private parts except from their spouses/wives
ELSE show an ayat that Allah sets them free from this obligationPeace peace
-
spouses/wives can also be translated as partners...
because for women they should also guard their private parts from their husbands, and Qur'an doesn't say so, so it is logical to assume the translation it this, and other places as PARTNERS...
no? ???
-
Salam
We have discussed this issue, repetition.
Refer here.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341306#msg341306
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341307#msg341307
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341309#msg341309
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341336#msg341336
Summary
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341257#msg341257
Main issue
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341043#msg341043
and the issue relating to the ayat is about men, we will bring another ayat to discuss about women. Settle one issue at a time and this thread is about "gay" (men). That is not the only ayat in the Qur'an. laugh
Peace
-
whatever
-
I've just found this
BBC OUR WORLD
http//www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03c89s4http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3rioFFCrFc
Duration 30 minutes
Featuring news on issues around the world. Tim Samuels explores how Tel Aviv has deliberately set out to become a gay mecca which is attracting holidaymakers as well as Arabs and Palestinians.
Towards the end there is this Orthodox Rabbi who had to reconcile his belief in God and his homosexuality, and now he is celebrating Sabbath services for gay people...
Interesting... -
I just don't find sufficient evidence to say that a homosexual can't be a muslim. It isn't explicitly stated, so why take chances and forbid what is not forbidden? It is an individual and private matter, and does not require interference.
~Abdul-Hadi
Salam Abdul-hadi ,
And you will not find too evidence to say that a homosexual can be a Muslim , It isn't explicitly stated , so why take chances and allow what is not allowed ?
Therefor evidence to say that homosexual is to be avoided by straight Muslim is explicitly stated
ALLAH knows best.
The below is the best knowledge from Allaah regarding the matter
Salam
Clear evidence, dispute this.
|
Premise 1|
The Qur'an says men must guard their "private parts" except from their spouses/wives|
Premise 2|
Gays are men and have "private parts"|
|
|
Therefore (rule)|
Gays must guard their "private parts" except from their spouses/wives|
|
Show me an ayat that they gays are exempted from the rule relating to "private parts"?
Where is the ayat that Allah sets them free from this obligation, which others are subject?
Peace
It is an individual and private matter, and does not require interference.
Yes they have total freedom to do whatever they want with their Private part .
The evident teaching
Total Freedom = Do whatever you want/wish , with your yourself and your private part .
But Remember !
Total Truth = There are things that are right to do and things that are wrong to do
, -
Greetings and Peace, all group
My comments are in purple.
Salam Abdul-hadi ,
And you will not find too evidence to say that a homosexual can be a Muslim , It isn't explicitly stated , so why take chances and allow what is not allowed ?
If a thing is not disallowed, it is allowed. Homosexuality has not been shown to be disallowed, therefore it is allowed. It is not a matter of "me" allowing something or not. Are you inventing rules that a thing must be explicitly allowed to be lawful?
Therefor evidence to say that homosexual is to be avoided by straight Muslim is explicitly stated
I'm don't understand the above statement, can you reword it please? What evidence? Why would a straight muslim have any interest in homosexuality in the first place?
The below is the best knowledge from Allaah regarding the matter
Yes they have total freedom to do whatever they want with their Private part .
The evident teaching
Total Freedom = Do whatever you want/wish , with your yourself and your private part .
But Remember !
Total Truth = There are things that are right to do and things that are wrong to do
,It has already been shown that the more accurate translation of the verses in question is mates and not spouses. A homosexual isn't allowed to be promiscuous any more than a heterosexual is; sexual acts are restricted to their mates. The verses apply to all people; men and women and homosexual/bisexual/heterosexual.
7029 And those who keep covered their private parts.
7030 Except around their mates or those maintained by their oaths, there is no blame.
7031 Whoever seeks anything beyond this, they are the transgressors.What legitimate interest could a person have in labeling other people non-muslim, anyway? There isn't one. It smacks of oppression. It is hateful. It is the very opposite of inviting others to the Deen.
494 O you who believe, if you go forth in the cause of GOD, you shall investigate carefully. And do not say to those who greet you with peace "You are not a believer!" You are seeking the vanity of this world; but with GOD are many riches. That is how you were before, but GOD graced you, so investigate carefully. GOD is expert over what you do.
4912 O you who believe, you shall avoid much suspicion, for some suspicion is sinful. And do not spy on one another, nor shall you backbite. Would any of you enjoy eating the flesh of his dead brother? You certainly would hate this. You shall observe GOD. GOD is Redeemer, Merciful.
May ALLAH see fit to Guide all seekers.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
Towards the end there is this Orthodox Rabbi who had to reconcile his belief in God and his homosexuality, and now he is celebrating Sabbath services for gay people...
Interesting...yay
7029 And those who keep covered their private parts.
7030 Except around their mates or those maintained by their oaths, there is no blame.
7031 Whoever seeks anything beyond this, they are the transgressors.This is the one of the key points of the discussion, but it seems some people abandoned it.
The word "mates" indeed show neutrality because they're masculine.http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341097#msg341097
Peace
-
This is the one of the key points of the discussion, but it seems some people abandoned it.
Salam
Another one of your baseless and self contradictory claims? laugh
Main issue
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341043#msg341043
Summary
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341257#msg341257
Current Issue, that need answer
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341428#msg341428
IF THEN ELSE.
IF gays are men
THEN gays must guard their private parts except from their spouses/wives
ELSE show an ayat that Allah sets them free from this obligationEarthdom says...
This is the one of the key points of the discussion, but it seems some people abandoned it.
Review...
Muslims Give translation comparison and all are referring to "wives/spouses". (refer here, translation section)
Earthdom Raise an argument that the translation of "spouses/wives" is wrong because "azwaj or zawaj means mates" and it is "masculine in gender". Therefore there can be same sex marriage.
Verses about "guard private part" is 235-6
23.5 And who () keep covered their private parts.
23.6 Except around their mates (), or those who are maintained by their oaths, they are free from blame.The blue word is allazi mean which, who, whom, whose and this is masculine.
The red word is azwaj or zawaj, means mate (mate can be husband or wife) and interestingly the red word is also masculine!!Muslims Question that the word "mates" is referring to "spouses" or "wives", otherwise we will have a self contradictory Qur'an. In fact, there is no need rules for marriage in the Qur'an.
(detail, refer here)
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?
Earthdom Change his argument and agrees that "mates is referring to spouses". He is now contradicting from his main argument.
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.
However, he maintain the argument or insisting that "spouses" is masculine in gender.
The red word is azwaj or zawaj, means mate (mate can be husband or wife) and interestingly the red word is also masculine!!
The subject of verse 235 is allazi (masculine in gender), interestingly mate/spouse in 236 is also (masculine in gender).
Muslims Raise an argument that "spouses" is not gender, so as "marriage". Man or woman, boy or girl, male or female is gender.
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.
Earthdom Again, he is contradicting his own argument and make another blank denial, for ... times?
I never said spouses is gender.
Muslims Point out how he is repeatedly making self contradictory statements.
read again... and see how you contradict your own statements!
The red word is azwaj or zawaj, means mate (mate can be husband or wife) and interestingly the red word is also masculine!!
The subject of verse 235 is allazi (masculine in gender), interestingly mate/spouse in 236 is also (masculine in gender).
and the explanation...
refer here...
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341309#msg341309
and
By the way... when did "spouses" become a gender?
When did "mates" become a gender?
Where did you learn "spouses" is a gender?
Which school?
Is "marriage" a gender?
Is "perkahwinan" a gender? Is a "man"?, Is a "woman"?, "lelaki"? "wanita"? laugh
Same as the words "mates"... it is general and includes animals or other living creatures.
and "spouses" is specific to human beings.
animals don't have "spouses" or "wives"...
Therefore and since Allah is saying about specific gender, ie. "Men"... then it must be "spouses" or "wives"
It means marriages according to the Qur'an; ie. "wives"
How can you compare with something in "general" when Allah is "specifically" referring to human beings and "private parts"?
You can't compare apples to oranges, or distort oranges to be apples.
Further, "marriages" or "spouses" is not gender.
Male and female, boy and girl, man and woman is gender.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341307#msg341307
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341309#msg341309
General
mate 1 (mt)
n.- One of a matched pair the mate to this glove.
- A spouse.
a. Either of a pair of animals or birds that associate in order to propagate.
b. Either of a pair of animals brought together for breeding.
4.
a. A person with whom one is in close association; an associate.
b. Chiefly British A good friend or companion.
c. A person with whom one shares living quarters. Often used in combination advertised for a new flatmate.
5. A deck officer on a merchant ship ranking next below the master.
6. A U.S. Navy petty officer who is an assistant to a warrant officer.Specific to human beings.
spouse (spous, spouz)
n.
A marriage partner; a husband or wife.
tr.v. (spouz, spous) spoused, spous?ing, spous?es Archaic
To marry; wed.http//s10.postimg.org/q7yexo3k9/mates.png
and...
By the way, don't rely too much on your Ajami Arabic and/or modern/persian grammar?
and.. since the Qur'an is in the Quraish Dialect .. and it has been more 1,400 years.
Therefore, try also to understand the context, apply wisdom and clear thinking! (as what you have said).
Then, follow the simple rule.
Wisdom and Clear Thinking = No Contradiction With Other Rules/Verses!
and his reply
Your premis is okay according to me.
Yes I believe that, there is no mixing for akal and the bathil.I agree for your view.
and then...
Earthdom Sudden change of topic, as usual.
The term "men" is too general, so in what context.
Muslims Deny that sudden change of topic and point out the objection has no merit.
So you don't agree "Gays" are "Men"?
There is no merit in your objection, unless you can prove gays are not men.
It is so since the issue you raise is about gender, and it is either "man/ boy/ male", or "woman/ girl/ female".
Choose one.
Similarly, the Qur'an also speak about "man/ boy/ male" or "woman/ girl/ female". There is no in between or else.
Earthdom Earthdom playing dumb, and tricks ... to avoid answering the real issue (refer here and here).
Sorry muslims, your reply actually not replying my post.
I never said if gay is not a man.
Please don't raise a little issue, like gay is not man if you want get to the point.I'm not an underage child, so don't use burden for proofing ).Muslims Proof and that he is playing dumb or tricks.
No it is not, I am replying to your post or question.
Read for yourself what your wrote.
The term "men"
is too general
so in what contextSee? you say the "term men"
What is the issue?
You are saying the term is "too general"
In other words, you are saying there is "general" and "specific" "term" relating to "men".
and... you need to find out their "context" to differentiate these terms relating to what is "men".
and what did I answer you?
So you don't agree
"Gays" are "Men"?There is no merit in your objection
unless you can prove gays are not menThere is no "general or specific" men in the Qur'an.
There is only "man" or "woman".
Earthdom He then stops answering for days... and now, suddenly, making new baseless claims, to start all over again.
This is the one of the key points of the discussion, but it seems some people abandoned it.
The word "mates" indeed show neutrality because they're masculine.insisting on his misinterpretation and ajami arabic grammar?
and totally disregarding the elements of "no contradictory rules" in the Qur'an?
comparison
We have discussed this issue, repetition.
Refer here.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341306#msg341306
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341307#msg341307
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341309#msg341309
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341336#msg341336
Summary
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341257#msg341257
Main issue
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341043#msg341043
AND... still no answer for the following question... (refer here)
Muslims Please answer the following question, rather than making false claims in the name of Allah.
and how many times you are using deception to avoid the issue... raising one after another?
Do you have an ayat to prove that they are exempted from this rule?
Which ayat? show me...
give me an ayat to show that homosexual are exempted from the rule relating to "private parts".
So.. where is the ayat to show that homosexual is exempted from the rules relating to "private parts"?
Now.. where is the ayat to show that homosexuals are exempted from the rule relating to "private parts"?
But since you have agreed that they have "private parts", then show me an ayat that they are exempted from the rule relating to "private parts"
Which ayat?
How many times I have to ask you, and how long you want to play dumb?
So.. where is the ayat to show that they are exempted from the rule relating to "private parts"?
Where is the ayat that Allah sets them free from this obligation, which others are subject?
Therefore...
QUESTION
IF THEN ELSE.
IF gays are men
THEN gays must guard their private parts except from their spouses/wives
ELSE show an ayat that Allah sets them free from this obligationIf you are true, then don't try to play dumb or tricks, and answer that simple question.
You are making a false conclusion in the name of Allah.
Do you fear Allah?
And indeed, there is among them
a party who alter the Scripture
with their tongues
so you may think it is from the Scripture
but it is not from the Scripture
And they say,
"This is from Allah
" but it is not from Allah
And they speak untruth about Allah
while they know
(37Do you remember the following statements?
there is no verse in the Quran which prohibit same sex marriage, if that verse is exist, just bring it to me.
If you disagree with this, then bring me one verse in the Quran which told us to judging or punish gays and lesbian.If you capable, I will hail to you.
If you do, then why you are playing tricks?
The problem of difference in tafseer within Quranist is lack of study and lack of wisdom and clear thinking.
....
I try to use wisdomly conclusion for this causeYes Earthdom,
You are right, wise.
Whereas everyone on here is stupid.Where is your "wisdom and clear thinking"? yeah
Please answer the question.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341428#msg341428
Peace
-
@Muslims, I will stop discussion with you if yu keep order me to follow your own RULE.
But I have one alternative, if you want continue the discussion, then answer this first ;
Which ayats that backed your statement (premis)?
|
Premise 1|
The Qur'an says men must guard their "private parts" except from their spouses/wives|
Premise 2|
Gays are men and have "private parts"|
|
|
Therefore (rule)|
Gays must guard their "private parts" except from their spouses/wives|
|
Before I follow your rule, I want discusss your rule's validation.
Peace
-
your question...
Which ayats that backed your statement (premis)?
and which is contradicting your own facts...
And verse 7029-31 is a repetation of 235-6.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341141#msg341141
what I mean mate is spouse of courseYour premis is okay according to me.
and...
Before I follow your rule, I want discusss your rule's validation.
which you already agree...
Then, follow the simple rule.
Wisdom and Clear Thinking = No Contradiction With Other Rules/Verses!
No valid argument can have one or more false premises and a true conclusion, garbage in garbage out.
Yes, ok I will follow.
That tablet which I know as modus ponen during my high school time ago.
Actually what I problemed is not your premis knowledge, but your Quran tafseer.
Your premis is okay according to me.Yes I believe that, there is no mixing for akal and the bathil.I agree for your view.
*highlight/link is mine
Salam
Playing tricks again? nope
Please answer the question.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341428#msg341428
and also refer here for main issue..
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341257#msg341257
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341043#msg341043Please don't waste time and answer this simple question... )
Show me an ayat that Allah sets them free from this obligation, which all men are subject.
Simplified..
IF THEN ELSE.
IF gays are men
THEN gays must guard their private parts except from their spouses/wives
ELSE show an ayat that Allah sets them free from this obligationPeace
-
I already told you if you your Aristoteles knowledges contains some faulthy.
You always pick some part of my post then judge me wrongly. and this is my full post
Yes, ok I will follow.
That tablet which I know as modus ponen during my high school time ago.
Actually what I problemed is not your premis knowledge, but your Quran tafseer.
Your premis is okay according to me.Yes I believe that, there is no mixing for akal and the bathil.I agree for your view.
What I mean is
|
Premise 1|
The Qur'an says men must guard their "private parts" except from their spouses/wives|
Premise 2|
Gays are men and have "private parts"|
|
|
Therefore (rule)|
Gays must guard their "private parts" except from their spouses/wives|
|
Your premises pattern is not wrong, but this conclusion is based on your intepretation from the Quran
Your wrong is in your intepretation of the Quran.Now simple, if yu want further, answer my question.
Peace
-
You always pick some part of my post then judge me wrongly. and this is my full post
Salam
I always pick some part of your post then judge you wrongly?
You must be kidding...
Look again.. .what is your question? o
Which ayats that backed your statement (premis)?
your question is relating to
"Which ayat"
"that backed"and when I give you the ayat
It is supposed to mean something else? brickwall
What I mean is
Your premises pattern is not wrong, but this conclusion is based on your intepretation from the Quran
How it is logical to relates...
"Which ayat"
"that backed"with the above answer relating to "my premise and conclusion"? confused
same here... and lots more, so obvious.. tricks
Secondly,
Your premises pattern is not wrong, but this conclusion is based on your intepretation from the Quran
Your wrong is in your intepretation of the Quran.and what did I answer, which you then suddenly change the topic to what is "men"?
Therefore, bring other verse relating to "men" and "private parts".
You can't compare apples to oranges, or distort oranges to be apples.
Bring another same premises from the Qur'an that relating to "men" and "private parts".
This is you how contradict an ayat from the Qur'an without contradicting other verses in the Qur'an.
and...
That is why I'm asking you to show me an ayat that Gays are exempted from the rule relating to "private parts", because gays are "men" and have "private parts". Therefore, they are equally obliged to comply with that rule.
Same as the words "mates"... it is general and includes animals or other living creatures.
and "spouses" is specific to human beings.
animals don't have "spouses" or "wives"...
Therefore and since Allah is saying about specific gender, ie. "Men"... then it must be "spouses" or "wives"
(added for understanding of the issue)
The blue word is allazi mean which, who, whom, whose and this is masculine.
It means marriages according to the Qur'an; ie. "wives"
How can you compare with something in "general" when Allah is "specifically" referring to human beings and "private parts"?
You can't compare apples to oranges, or distort oranges to be apples.
Further, "marriages" or "spouses" is not gender.
Male and female, boy and girl, man and woman is gender.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341307#msg341307
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg341309#msg341309
http//s10.postimg.org/q7yexo3k9/mates.png
meaning of spouse, husband or wife.
So.. let me confirm it again with you for the (x) times, you mean it as "spouses"?
Yes, by looking of verse's context.
Meta-search tool indexing 13 million words from 1,000 dictionaries.
http//www.onelook.com/?w=spouse&ls=aRoget's Thesaurus
http//dictionary.reference.com/browse/spouse?s=tor
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
http//education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/spouseCollins English Dictionary
http//www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/spouseOxford Dictionaries Online
http//www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/spouse?q=spouseMerriam Webster
http//www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spouseCambridge
http//dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/spouse?q=spouseMacmillan
http//www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/spouseAbbreviations.com
http//www.abbreviations.com/SPOUSEDefinitions.net
http//www.definitions.net/definition/spouseVocabulary.com
https//www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/spouseNo. 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.
okay.. giveup and will stop my discussion with you...
I cannot understand your English
and neither you can understand your own English or what you wrote
and then.. you are blaming other people for your inability to understand what you ask people...
this has happened for so many times and I got really bored with this miscommunication
and further...
you don't have the ayat to support your conclusion
despite how many times I ask or trying to explain it to you..
you will play dumb, tricks and blame others, then start all over again to rely on your wishful thinking.. your dogma.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is probably what?
Peace