None in the worlds was homosexual before Lut's people?
-
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!
-
Rajul or rijal can include females and males. In the Quran there are several instances of that usage, and in spiritual literature it is also employed for females. Sorry that I do not have now at hand the usage of rajul in that sense in the Quran, but it can be verified with and index.
I think that depending on context nisaa' may effectively mean those left behind, what we might even call today "marginalised", and the association of marginalised and women is there, even though among those marginalised there may be males and females. I think that the word does not need to be a single meaning. but may be "alive" and fit depending on the context and requirements, the same as with other words in the Quran, which are "open", like jinn, or ma malakat ayman"...
Salaam
-
peace huruf, sarah, all,
I know it has been mentioned before in the forum that "rijal" (and nisaa) may refer to men and women, but I am yet to see any decent evidence of this. In fact, in some/many cases, it simply cannot mean that, so I can understand why it is suggested the meaning may vary depending on context, but let us ask ourselves, does AQ require us to guess which meaning is correct in such cases? If not, then what is the criteria? what is the most solid example people can bring forward from AQ of this usage? As far as I'm aware, no-one has written any articles or detailed posts on this subject.
-
This is what the Quran says about Lut's people(Lot in the Bible), taken from the Free minds site translation
780
And Lot, he said to his people "Do you commit lewdness such as none of those of the worlds had done before?"
781
"You are approaching the men out of desire instead of the women! Indeed, you are a transgressing people."As it happens, homosexuality is amply present in many creatures, from mammals to insects.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animalsThis ancient Egyptian couple is widely speculated to be male lovers
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khnumhotep_and_Niankhkhnum
Why does Allah claim that "none in the worlds" was homosexual before Lut's people, given that homosexuality is present in so many other animals?
Yes, that's incredible! Sure there were homosexuals before Lot! rotfl
IMPORTANT!
When Science is Context Three Questions Show
The Men of the Quranic Lot Story
Are Heterosexual men not Homosexual menIntroduction
Today, there are many studies showing sexual orientation is not environmentally influenced, but rather individuals are born with a sexual orientation.
See Parts I-IX Below
Applying these studies as an element of context within the Quranic Lot story, the story shows a condemnation of lustful homosexual acts of heterosexual men, and not a condemnation of homosexual acts of homosexual men. In other words, and the thesis of this short article, the men of the Quranic Lot story are heterosexual men not homosexual men. To support this thesis, I will share three commonsensical questions that must be asked about the Quranic Lot story when these studies become part of the story's context.
First Question
The first question that must be asked when these studies become part of the context is found in the Quran verse 781. The verse states,
". . . with lust you approach men instead of women . . ."
(Quran 781, M. Asad)
As seen, this verse uses ?instead of.? This usage shows the men of the Quranic Lot story are heterosexual men. How? Because the question that must be asked with science as context Can homosexual men approach women ?instead of? men?
Second Question
The second question that must be asked when these studies become part of the context is found in the Quran verse 1178. The verse states,
". . . Said "O my people! these daughters of mine they are purer for you ! . . ."
(Quran 1178, M. Asad)
As seen, this verse states that Lot offered his daughters to these men. This offering shows the men of the Quranic Lot story are heterosexual men. How? Because the question that must be asked with science as context Would Lot offer homosexual men his daughters?
Third Question
The third question that must be asked when these studies become part of the context is found in the Quran verse 26166. The verse states,
"keeping yourselves aloof from all the spouses whom your Sustainer has created for you? . . ."
(Quran 26166, M. Asad)
As seen, this verse states God created spouses for these men. This creating of spouses for these men shows the men of the Quranic Lot story are heterosexual men. How? Because the question that must be asked with science as context Would God create women for homosexual men?
Conclusion
When science is context, these three questions are enough to rightly question the long held belief that the Quranic Lot story is a condemnation of homosexual acts of homosexual men rather than a condemnation of lustful homosexual acts of heterosexual men.
Watch the videos and read.
The source
http//www.godists.com/articles/islam_when_science_is_context_three_questions_show_the_men_of_the_quranic_lot_story_are_heterosexual_men_not_homosexual_men -
I don't care about gays or lesbians.
But don't you feel disgusted by anal sex or sodomy?
That's ewwwwwwww. -
peace huruf, sarah, all,
I know it has been mentioned before in the forum that "rijal" (and nisaa) may refer to men and women, but I am yet to see any decent evidence of this. In fact, in some/many cases, it simply cannot mean that, so I can understand why it is suggested the meaning may vary depending on context, but let us ask ourselves, does AQ require us to guess which meaning is correct in such cases? If not, then what is the criteria? what is the most solid example people can bring forward from AQ of this usage? As far as I'm aware, no-one has written any articles or detailed posts on this subject.
so, wakas i take it thst you do exclude women from prophethood, maryam also?
salaam
-
I don't care about gays or lesbians.
But don't you feel disgusted by anal sex or sodomy?
That's ewwwwwwww.You're saying that as a heterosexual. As a homosexual man, one might find any type of sex involving the vagina as disgusting. It's all relative , no?
One of the reasons I don't believe it's wrong is because we all know sodomy was not invented and the inception of its practice was not during the time of which this verse refers, but rather, much before this time period.
Salaam.
-
You're saying that as a heterosexual. As a homosexual man, one might find any type of sex involving the vagina as disgusting. It's all relative , no?
One of the reasons I don't believe it's wrong is because we all know sodomy was not invented and the inception of its practice was not during the time of which this verse refers, but rather, much before this time period.
Salaam.
that does not mean much. neither was murder or cheating or prostitution invented then and it does not mean that they are honourable. I mean seniority is not necessarily a grade.
salaam
-
Salaam,
that does not mean much. neither was murder or cheating or prostitution invented then and it does not mean that they are honourable. I mean seniority is not necessarily a grade.
salaam
I speak in reference to the following
"And Lot, he said to his people "Do you commit lewdness such as none of those of the worlds had done before?" (781)
-
Salaam,
I speak in reference to the following
"And Lot, he said to his people "Do you commit lewdness such as none of those of the worlds had done before?" (781)
that is a figure of speech as comes several times in the qur'an to magnify something, it is not a histoical statement. bu be it as it may what does moally matter that something is older or younger?
salaam
-
Salaam,
that is a figure of speech as comes several times in the qur'an to magnify something, it is not a histoical statement. bu be it as it may what does moally matter that something is older or younger?
salaam
I take that statement literally. I haven't at any stage inferred that a certain manner of behaviour is appropriate or inappropriate depending on whether it has been carried out previously or not.
Peace.
-
You're saying that as a heterosexual. As a homosexual man, one might find any type of sex involving the vagina as disgusting. It's all relative , no?
No. There are many heterosexuals engage in anal sex.
There are also some homosexuals that are not fond of anal sex. In my country (which is Muslim-majority btw), there are a quite many transvestites here but most of them don't have boyfriends but just enjoy their lives like single ladies by dressing and acting like ladies. I have no problem with them coz they are funny but Sharia supporters in my country might harm them.One of the reasons I don't believe it's wrong is because we all know sodomy was not invented and the inception of its practice was not during the time of which this verse refers, but rather, much before this time period.
Salaam.
This kind of activity (anal sex) is not safe. That's why I don't care if people, whether heterosexuals or homosexuals who got caught committing anal sex are jailed because this activity is really harmful.
-
No. There are many heterosexuals engage in anal sex.
That's right. Anal sex is not merely a pursuit of homosexual men.
There are also some homosexuals that are not fond of anal sex. In my country (which is Muslim-majority btw), there are a quite many transvestites here but most of them don't have boyfriends but just enjoy their lives like single ladies by dressing and acting like ladies. I have no problem with them coz they are funny but Sharia supporters in my country might harm them.
Yes, I have seen these people in Malaysia, and I have seen some quite devout ones too.
Anyway, you're right that they might not have anal sex, which is why I mentioned any type of sex involving the vagina. Sex is such a broad term. It encompasses far too much and that is a difficulty which I encountered when attempting to get my point across, so I tried to make it as general as possible.
Why do you think anal sex is harmful to the extent that it would justify people getting jailed for it?
-
No. There are many heterosexuals engage in anal sex.
There are also some homosexuals that are not fond of anal sex. In my country (which is Muslim-majority btw), there are a quite many transvestites here but most of them don't have boyfriends but just enjoy their lives like single ladies by dressing and acting like ladies. I have no problem with them coz they are funny but Sharia supporters in my country might harm them.
This kind of activity (anal sex) is not safe. That's why I don't care if people, whether heterosexuals or homosexuals who got caught committing anal sex are jailed because this activity is really harmful.RED How do you know that?
RED How do you know that?BOLD Who cares what you think?
By the way you are not only vulgar, but also intolerant with offensive speech towards a group of people. I wonder who entitled you to that?
Shame for a woman!
HOMOSEXUALITY is not ONLY about sex, but about LOVE between two men (or 2 women), and freaks there are everywhere!
But this thread is about "Lot's people" and the interpretation of the Qur'an, and not about isolated local freaks somewhere, so try to stay focused if your attention span makes it possible for you...
PS
And the Qur'an talks there about Lot and MEN, so I find it quite ridiculous that women should discuss it, it is of no concern to them, so, stick your nose to your feminist things please.
There is enough material in the Qur'an concerning women, ponder those. -
Quote from Wakas on January 17, 2010, 060906 AM
peace huruf, sarah, all,
I know it has been mentioned before in the forum that "rijal" (and nisaa) may refer to men and women, but I am yet to see any decent evidence of this. In fact, in some/many cases, it simply cannot mean that, so I can understand why it is suggested the meaning may vary depending on context, but let us ask ourselves, does AQ require us to guess which meaning is correct in such cases? If not, then what is the criteria? what is the most solid example people can bring forward from AQ of this usage? As far as I'm aware, no-one has written any articles or detailed posts on this subject.
so, wakas i take it thst you do exclude women from prophethood, maryam also?
salaam
