Understanding the story of Lot and homosexuality
-
Suppose the gays say Allah has not dogmatically mentioned the right hand possessed are specifically females; it could be males too. In that case what is your enlightenment.
The Quran is not an encyclopedia and it only provides the substance or the main principle for determining legal issue.
A Book whose ayats
are perfectly constructed
and then demarcated
coming directly from One who is All-Wise, All-Aware.
111Therefore I believe we need reasoning from proper logical methodology, and this is where the "analogical reasoning" (Qiyas) and "critical thinking" (ijtihad) should be applied to derive the right principles from the Quran.
Therefore, I think we should look for further the rule relating to marrying the right hand possesses.
. . .
General Rule Only the prophet can marry with those of the right hand possesses. It is unlawful for the believers to marrry them.
O Prophet, indeed We have made LAWFUL TO YOU <- lawful vs. unlawful to you
(1) your wives to whom you have given their due compensation
(2) and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you <- subject matter
(3) and the daughters of your paternal uncles
(4) and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles
(5) and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you
(6) and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to marry her,only for you
excluding the believers. <- the prohibition
3350Exception Can marry those of the right hand possesses in this situation and if comply with the following conditions.
And whoever among you <- the situation, but "but to be patient is better for you" (see below)
(1) cannot the means
(2) to marry free, believing women(3)(+ for those who fears sin of adultery, see below)
THEN from
(1) those whom your right hands possess
(2) of believing slave girlsAnd Allah is most knowing about your faith. You are of one another.
So marry them <- the conditions for an exception to the general rule in 33.50
(3) with the permission of their people
(4) and give them their due compensation
(5) according to what is acceptable.
(6) chaste,
(7) neither those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly
(8 ) nor those who take lovers.BUT once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery,
THEN for them is
(1) half the punishment for free women.This is for him among you who fears sin <- refer to the above situation
but to be patient is better for youAnd Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
Allah wants to make clear to you <- rationale of this rule
and guide you to the practices of those before you
and to accept your repentance.
And Allah is Knowing and Wise
425-26Conclusion Would it be lawful to marry with the same sex from the right hand possess if it is restrictive and unlawful to do so with the female slaves? I believe the conclusion to allow for such marriages is very weak and unreasonable , unless. . someone can show a clear authority from the Quran it is allowed to do so.
-
When translated as "pairs" or "couples," the words make sense in all usages--and these translations do not necessarily exclude homosexuals. It is interesting to me that "two males" and "two females" are referred to in 6143--any possibility that these could be considered azwjin?
Firstly, if we allowed for such rules. . then there is no need for rules relating to marriages etc in the Quran. It will contradict many verses from the Quran and the whole Quran will sound unreasonable.
Secondly, the subject matter is "human being" and for marriages, we use "spouses" or "wives" (azwjihim, ْ.
I believe "pair" is specifically used when the subject matter is related to something other than human beings.
"Mates" is the general terms and specifically used for animals, and so as verse 6.143. . it is relating to sheeps, ie. animals.These are my views.
http//s10.postimg.org/q7yexo3k9/mates.png
. . .
Other translations, (7029-31)
Other Translations
Muhammad Asad
with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess - for then, behold, they are free of all blame,M. M. Pickthall
Save with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy;Shakir
Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess-- for these surely are not to be blamed,Yusuf Ali (Saudi Rev. 1985)
Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed,Yusuf Ali (Orig. 193
Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed,Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar
but not from their spouses or what their right hands possessed. Truly, they are not ones who will be reproached.Wahiduddin Khan
except from their spouses and those whom they rightfully possess , for which they incur no blameT.B.Irving
except with their own spouses or those living under their control; with such they are blameless.Except with their wives and with those of the captives in their hands; an act being then holy and incurs no blame;
(2011 Edition)
Except around their spouses or those committed to by oath, there is no blame.Abdel Haleem
from all but their spouses or their slave-girls??there is no blame attached to these,Abdul Majid Daryabadi
Save in regard to their spouses or those whom their right hands own; so verily they are not blameworthy -Ahmed Ali
And those who guard their sex except from their wives and women slaves of old. Are free of blameAisha Bewley
except from their wives and any slaves they own, in which case they incur no blame,Ali ?nal
Save from their spouses or (as a permission for men) those (bondsmaids) whom their right hands possess, for with regard to them they are free from blame.Ali Quli Qara'i
(except from their spouses and their slave women, for then they are not blameworthy;Hamid S. Aziz
Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess - for on these surely is no blame,Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali
Except with their spouses or what their right hands possess; then surely they are not blameworthy (Literally other than being blameworthy).Muhammad Sarwar
except from their wives and slave girls, in which case they are not to be blamed,Muhammad Taqi Usmani
except from their wives and those (slave-girls) owned by their hands,__ because they are not to be blamed,Shabbir Ahmed
They have intimate relations only with their spouses - that is, those who are rightfully theirs through wedlock. For such relationship they are free of blame. ('Aw' = Or = That is = And. (235-7)).Syed Vickar Ahamed
Except from their wives and the (captive) whom their right hand possess? For (them), they are not to be blameworthy,Umm Muhammad (Sahih International)
Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed -Farook Malik
except from their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for in their case they are not blameworthy.Dr. Munir Munshey
Except with their spouses _ those whom their right hands possess; because then, they are not blameworthy.Dr. Mohammad Tahir-ul-Qadri
Except from their wives or the female slaves they possess. So (in this) there is no blame on them.Dr. Kamal Omar
except unto their wives or ma-malakat-aimanuhum (the women who are given in guardianship of adult males as their wives under a document prepared by the Muslim state) ? then surely they are unblamed people.Talal A. Itani (new translation)
Except from their spouses or those living under their control, for then they are free of blame.Bilal Muhammad (2013 Edition)
Except with their spouses and those who their right hands possess, for they are not to be blamed,Maududi
except in regard to their spouses and those whom their right hands possess, for in regard to them they are not reproachable,(2013 Edition)
Except around their spouses or those maintained by their oaths, there is no blame.Bijan Moeinian
with their wives and the ones that God has approved for them.Faridul Haque
Except with their wives and the bondwomen in their possession, for there is no reproach on them.Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah
except from their wives and what their right hands own, for these they are not blameworthy.Muhammad Ahmed - Samira
Except on (for) their spouses and what their rights owned/possessed (i.e. care-givers of the sick, elderly and disabled under contract), so then they are not blameworthy/blamed.Sher Ali
Except from their wives and from those whom their right hands possess; such indeed, are not to blame;Rashad Khalifa
(They have relations) only with their spouses, or what is legally theirs -Ahmed Raza Khan (Barelvi)
Except with their wives and the bondwomen in their possession, for there is no reproach on them.Amatul Rahman Omar
Except from their (free) wives or those (wives of theirs) whom their right hands own (- slave wives), for which they are not to blame.Muhsin Khan & Muhammad al-Hilali
Except with their wives and the (women slaves and captives) whom their right hands possess, for (then) they are not to be blamed,Non-Muslim and/or Orientalist works
Arthur John Arberry
save from their wives and what their right hands own, then not being blameworthyEdward Henry Palmer
except for their wives or the (slave girls) whom their right hands possess, for they are not to be blamed;George Sale
of women other than their wives, or the slaves which their right hands possess; -- for as to them they shall be blameless;John Medows Rodwell
(Save with their wives or the slaves whom their right hands have won, for there they shall be blameless;N J Dawood (draft)
save with their wives and slave?girls, for these are lawful for them -
Greetings and Peace all group
My comments are in red.
Firstly, if we allowed for such rules. . then there is no need for rules relating to marriages etc in the Quran. It will contradict many verses from the Quran and the whole Quran will sound unreasonable.
Contradict the Qur'an, or contradict conventional understanding of the Qur'an? Is that such a bad thing?
Secondly, the subject matter is "human being" and for marriages, we use "spouses" or "wives" (azwjihim, ْ.
I understand that the entire Qur'an is for our instruction. It is reasonable that a word has the same meaning whenever it is used, isn't it?
I believe "pair" is specifically used when the subject matter is related to something other than human beings.
"Mates" is the general terms and specifically used for animals, and so as verse 6.143. . it is relating to sheeps, ie. animals.These are my views.
. . .
<snip>
What did the various translations have to say about 6143 or about 20131? 20131 is about humans, after all. They didn't say spouses or mates, did they...
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
Contradict the Qur'an, or contradict conventional understanding of the Qur'an? ) Is that such a bad thing?
I understand that the entire Qur'an is for our instruction. It is reasonable that a word has the same meaning whenever it is used, isn't it?
Unless you can prove that "marriage between same sex is in the Quran" . .
then it is contradicting the Quran, and accepted norms of human life and other living creatures (ie. of different sex etc). . .I believe the conclusion to allow for such marriages is very weak and unreasonable , unless. . someone can show a clear authority from the Quran it is allowed to do so.
and here is what I mean as "clear authority"
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606010.msg342131#msg342131
. . .
What did the various translations have to say about 6143 or about 20131? 20131 is about humans, after all. They didn't say spouses or mates, did they...
The verse in issue is verse (7029-31) and which related to the meaning of "wives" or "spouses" (azwjihim, ْ.
and sorry, I don't understand how these verses is related to verse (7029-31) and human beings. . .
eight mates - of the sheep, two and of the goats, two. Say, "Is it the two males He has forbidden or the two females or that which the wombs of the two females contain? Inform me with knowledge, if you should be truthful." (6143)
And do not extend your eyes toward that by which We have given enjoyment to categories of them, the splendor of worldly life by which We test them. And the provision of your Lord is better and more enduring. (20131)
whereas. . .
Secondly, the subject matter is "human being" and for marriages, we use "spouses" or "wives" (azwjihim, ْ.
I believe "pair" is specifically used when the subject matter is related to something other than human beings.
"Mates" is the general terms and specifically used for animals, and so as verse 6.143. . it is relating to sheeps, ie. animals. -
The Quran is not an encyclopedia and it only provides the substance or the main principle for determining legal issue.
A Book whose ayats
are perfectly constructed
and then demarcated
coming directly from One who is All-Wise, All-Aware.
111Therefore I believe we need reasoning from proper logical methodology, and this is where the "analogical reasoning" (Qiyas) and "critical thinking" (ijtihad) should be applied to derive the right principles from the Quran.
Therefore, I think we should look for further the rule relating to marrying the right hand possesses.
. . .
General Rule Only the prophet can marry with those of the right hand possesses. It is unlawful for the believers to marrry them.
Exception Can marry those of the right hand possesses in this situation and if comply with the following conditions.
Conclusion Would it be lawful to marry with the same sex from the right hand possess if it is restrictive and unlawful to do so with the female slaves? I believe the conclusion to allow for such marriages is very weak and unreasonable , unless. . someone can show a clear authority from the Quran it is allowed to do so.
Salam,
Muslims.May Allah be pleased with you
-
http//www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html
http//www.theguardian.com/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa
http//io9.com/5967426/scientists-confirm-that-homosexuality-is-not-genetic--but-it-arises-in-the-womb
http//www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html
Peace Wakas, Everyone,
Being "born gay" is false, and has been shown by scientific studies.
Research the studies done on genetically identical twins, who later in life, one is homosexual, one heterosexual. This is very common.
Being ?Born Gay? does not necessarily mean that it is due to one single Gene which makes you gay. Sexuality is more complex than to be defined by one gene. Very few things about the body and how the brain is structured and works are defined by just one gene. If you study Genetics or molecular Biology, this is one of the first things you will learn. Moreover, in the link I have provided at the start of my post gives a quick summary of some of the studies into biological basis for Homosexuality. In the one by Canadian reasearchers, it shows that it may not be caused by Genes at all, it is in part due to the increasing strength in the mothers immune response.
The second link is there just to show more evidence that there may be some type of genetic factor involved in the causation of homosexuality.
The third link is another example how Homosexuality is not purely Gene based. Genetics is so much more complicated than ?You have this Gene, therefore you will have yellow hair? etc.
The fourth link is there to show you that the study you mentioned is most probably an anomaly. Also the ?epi-marks? explanation, explains why one twin with the same genes as his brother did not turn out to be gay also. The straight twin obviously lacked the epigenetic modification which would lead to homosexuality.
In summary, we can conclude that there is some Biological basis for homosexuality, probably not genetic, but biological nonetheless. Therefore, being gay is Definitely not a simple Choice. If it was, when did you choose to be straight?
And thank you for the link to the Thread, I will read it when I have more time. (I'm currently studying for exams!). But because there is some Biological basis, and no clear condemnation of homosexuality (being attracted to the same sex) in the Quran, I believe that being Gay is ok according to the Quran. Simply put, Allah would not create Gay people when they cannot help it, and then condemn them for it. It's like making black people, and condemning them for being Black!
Peace everyone, I sincerely hope I haven't offended anyone with my post as I understand this is a sensitive subject. )
Mino-taur
-
Again this like going on forever over free will and predestination. Gets nowhere.
Because what it revolves around is just that. On the other hand, I am still surprised that people keep on and on on whether it is by choice or by birth and look for statistics and science and all that which is very nice. but the point is that just knowing the people, the real people one knows that there are some who have sex with their own sex by choice and others that have a "natural" tendency to it. There is no one and only one way of behaving homosexual or bisexual or heterosexual. Many today considered even by themselves homosexual are so by choice. And many heterosexual are also so by choice, they could well have a great time with somebody of their own sex. They simply do not allow themselves to do it, which is an intelligent choice. And choice may involve simply the reason why one would involve in sex at all.
As to whether it is wrong or not, it is up to each person to examine her or himself as to the motives why they would do something or other. The blanket no it is not wrong or yes it is wrong does not work even for "hetero". Your motives must be sound. It is not some crowd or some ulemas who will bring you to account but your own deep self who wants to go back to Divinity to whom you should answer.
None here need to say a word or to be convinced of anything as to what any other person does with her or his sex life, it is each real person who should respond to her or himself as to whether they are being faithful or just giving themselves the answer that makes their life more pleasant or more fashionable or whatever in spite of deep down not wanting to know further.
And that problem we all peopla have, be it with sex or be it with other things. The point with sex is that a whole life is conditioned very much by that choice and we should consider the extent to which it will affect us.
Regarding the Qur'an, my conclusion is that it leaves things in the shade and is not obssessed with sex "sins". Just as it has been used wrongly to "endorse" poligamy, when in fact in 4.3 it doe snto talk about it, it is also used in some parts to set sexual dictates where in fact it doe snot go into it.
The thing into which the Qur'an really goes into is the intruding into people intimacy and privacy. The Qur'an forbids us to pry in people's private life, to wanting to know what is of no concern to us. Respect for private life, that is it. Sexual life is private life. It is each person who should look into his own private life, not the bunch of society.
Marriage, since it is the source of new generations, has to be protected. That is something which has nothing to do with protecting as such a sexual relationship, which again, is private. But what is protected is the birth and upbringing of generations.
People of any sex should be able to contract cohabitation, just as people are able to contract anything else, and what they do inside their homes is no public affair. They may or may not do this or that. It is their business and the faithful should not go into the private affairs of other people.
Do I need to know whether two women with blood relationship or without it, who live together, engage in sex or not? I do not need at all such knowledge, and personally, unless they are friends or some relation to me I do not want to be trown to me any such knowledge. It is no business of mine and it does not serve any purpose. Just as I do not need to know whether such or such person masturbates or not.
Homosexual love is not the equivalent of heterosexual love. Wrong or right or in the middle, whether it deserves approval or not, it is not the equivalent. But everybody should be able to live with the persons of his or her choice with a proper contract. And what they do or do not do in private is strictly their own private affair. The sex of the persons does not change a thing. Be they of the same or of different sex, sex is private. It is of no concern to anybody else, except as regards the reproduction, which obviously, as a result is public, very public.
Salaam
-
Peace Huruf,
I do totally agree with you on the point that what people choose to do in their own privacy is not a matter concerned with the Public. With that said, it is important to see if Homosexuality is in line with the Quran as parents will start to Condemn their own children and make them feel bad for something they cannot help.
Most (I'm saying 95%) of people will tell you that they cannot help being gay, that it is not a choice. Now I do accept that there are these people who may Engage in "Homosexual" activities but these people are not Inherently homosexual, they are usually engaging in such acts as they may be confused or want to try something different. These people, i repeat, are NOT homosexual. So in effect, there are people who engage in homosexual acts because they have some personal reason for doing so, and Those who engage in sexual acts with the same gender because they are not attracted to the opposite Gender.
Please, speak with a Real life Homosexual, and you will understand what im speaking about.I believe you are getting confused with that it is a Choice to engage in Homosexual activities, which is true. But it is NOT a choice of Who you are attracted to. If you are a Heterosexual man, tell me if you can choose to be attracted to Men tomorrow. Can you do that? Can you wake up tomorrow and decide to be only sexually aroused by men and not women?
You will find that it is not possible because sexual attraction is hardwired into your brain as it leads to reproduction. The body will not let this part of the brain be left to choice. What happens in Homosexuals is a biological mismatch happens, giving men, the same attraction mechanism as (Heterosexual) women.And Homosexual Love IS equivalent to Heterosexual Love. The love between a Man and Woman, is Exactly the same between the between a Man and a Man, and a Woman and a Woman.
Also, I'm sorry, i did not understand some of your post
Peace
Mino-taur
-
I believe Allah acknowledge this and that's why lesser punishment for the crime of sexual intercourse between gays . .
If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both <- lash each one of them with a hundred lashes (242)
If they repent and amend ie. based on the "NATURE OF OFFENCE" - "Sexual Intercourse"
Leave them alone <- Allah is lenient on them
for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful
4.16 -
And Homosexual Love IS equivalent to Heterosexual Love. The love between a Man and Woman, is Exactly the same between the between a Man and a Man, and a Woman and a Woman.
How do you know that?
Do you able to ascertain accurately the love feelings of other people?
Just curious. peace
-
Peace Huruf,
I do totally agree with you on the point that what people choose to do in their own privacy is not a matter concerned with the Public. With that said, it is important to see if Homosexuality is in line with the Quran as parents will start to Condemn their own children and make them feel bad for something they cannot help.
Most (I'm saying 95%) of people will tell you that they cannot help being gay, that it is not a choice. Now I do accept that there are these people who may Engage in "Homosexual" activities but these people are not Inherently homosexual, they are usually engaging in such acts as they may be confused or want to try something different. These people, i repeat, are NOT homosexual. So in effect, there are people who engage in homosexual acts because they have some personal reason for doing so, and Those who engage in sexual acts with the same gender because they are not attracted to the opposite Gender.
Please, speak with a Real life Homosexual, and you will understand what im speaking about.I believe you are getting confused with that it is a Choice to engage in Homosexual activities, which is true. But it is NOT a choice of Who you are attracted to. If you are a Heterosexual man, tell me if you can choose to be attracted to Men tomorrow. Can you do that? Can you wake up tomorrow and decide to be only sexually aroused by men and not women?
You will find that it is not possible because sexual attraction is hardwired into your brain as it leads to reproduction. The body will not let this part of the brain be left to choice. What happens in Homosexuals is a biological mismatch happens, giving men, the same attraction mechanism as (Heterosexual) women.And Homosexual Love IS equivalent to Heterosexual Love. The love between a Man and Woman, is Exactly the same between the between a Man and a Man, and a Woman and a Woman.
Also, I'm sorry, i did not understand some of your post (
Peace )
Mino-taur
Man, you are funny, what makes you think that I have not talked to "homosexual men", wha makes you think even that I have talked to homosexual men less than you. I know what I am talking about. And you are wrong that people do not become homosexual or heterosexual by choice. They do. It may not work as a switch that you push it and everything chnages, it may be subtler or more gradual than that, but it is well known saying that proves true many times that for men, when they try with men they get to like it very much. Of course for that you need to give permission to yourself to fall into that, but many do give permission to themselves. Others do not, not even give permission to themselves to try. And that is wise. No need to add complications to one's life.
You are talking to me as if I didn't know anything, and was talking blindly, but I know what I know and I know what I am saying, and of course there are people, many people, I would say most people, that if they gave permission to themselves would feel attracted to either sex. They do not need to give permission to themselves, so they leave it at that, but do not try to pull on me the clich?e of the ingrained unsurmountable attraction to the same sex or to the opposite sex. I do not buy it. Some people may be like that, but where social permisivity allows people are very universal, and attraction exclusively to the same sex rarely stems from hormonal disfunctions but most of the time, overwhelmely it stems from emotional conditioning or trauma from early age. Emotional matters are far more important that the so ingrained genetic or whatever. Curiosity is another way where people come to be homosexual.
And if you divide homosexual as born with it or not real homosexuals you are kidding yourself. Where do you put the barrier separating both. Real homosexuals is what? There is not such thing, as there are no real heterosexual. The only division I can think of is motive. And the motive one justifies to oneself, not to others. One may cheat oneself or not, but there is no point in trying to make other people believe anything at all regarding one's sex life.
And there is no difference whether it is different sex or same sex. Moral people do not act on impulse and mere attraction, whether to the same or to different sex. Moral people refrain from engaging in situations where they may harm themselves or others, or demean themselves or others or get into relationships they know cannot bring anything but problems and difficulties.
Peole are not animals who just let themselves be led by their physical impulses, neither with people of the same sex nor with people of different sex.
Salaam
-
Peole are not animals who just let themselves be led by their physical impulses, neither with people of the same sex nor with people of different sex.
And that is one problem with applying Lut's history to determining how much does God condemn "homosexuality" because if we take it as that, we would come to the conclusion that what they did wrong was choosing the sex and not the raping and the violence and the use of other human beings for their beastly purposes, or had they done that to people of the other sex would have been better and moral? In fact some people from reading Lut's words interpret that in fact Lut did offer his daughters or feminine followers to the rapers, was he condoning raping and beastliness provided it was not done to men but to women? Like good rapers rape women, not men?
That is the big objection, or one big objection that I find when applying Lut's history to condemn homosexuality and it is that by the same token they approve of violence on women and the use of women as a legitimate usable object for lusts and bestiality of males. Disgusting, in fact I find that more disgusting than their preying on males.
So we should know what we are talking about. In the Qur'an God's gives males the task of taking care of women with their wealth and male partners of women to respect them and pay them and honour them, but aside of the history of Lut I do not see that the Qur'an goes into the question of "homosexuality". If anybody sees anything like that anywhere, please point it out.
May be it is as plain as that homosexuality or heteresexuality in fact do not exist, but are simply cultural figments.
There are, I know, and I am sure of it, very few people who do have physically border characteristics from the point of view of physiollogy and chemistry, they are neither fully females or fully male sor they are partly females and partly males. That is like people who have six fingers or siamese siblings or anything out of the norm. They are a very hard trial for the people who happen to have that conformation. All that can be done is take them as they are and be compassionate for their plight, because if it is already a trial for "normal" people to wade through the cultural conventions and idiocies of societies concerning sex, for a people like them it must be hell.
Other than that "homo" or "hetero" may be compulsive for some people, but it is nto because of their "natural" urges but because of other circumstances, most of the time emotional that set their survival instincts to atune to their emotional conditions. It is very easy to not do anything about the causes of things and simply decide that as you are you are right because it is "natural". Some things may be unavoidable, but not because they are "natural" but because whatever, but if they are unavoidable, they are unavoidable and the last thing one should do is punish oneself because of unavoidability on topp of suffering already that unavoidability. But another firs thing one should not do is kid oneself as to the reason or causes for whatever one does. It only confuses isues and comlicate things making them unsolvable, because one rejects investigating and finding out.
Feeling attraction to whatever may no be a sin but not wanting to know and wanting to cling to ignorance for lack of courage is an error, and errors always come back with a vengeance.
So I do not agree that people get comfort in this oversimplification of assuming that people are "naturally" attracted to one sex or the other and do not take any interest in their own beings and motives and identity because they already have their alibi for doing what comes EASIER for them. Good thigns are not necessarily easier in the short run, but on the long run are far more satisfactory.
This artificial division between "homos" and "heteros", as far as I am concerned, is crap. It is just social and intellectual laziness disguised largeness of spirit or tolerance.
It is not about condemning or approving anything, it is about knowing oneself and helping others, respectfully and without trespassing on their intimacy, to know themselves.
Salaam
-
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"2929] "You sexually approach men, you commit highway robbery, and you bring all vice to your society." But the only response from his people was to say, "Bring us God's retribution, if you are being truthful!"
"You are approaching the men out of lust instead of the women! No, you are an ignorant people!"
"Do you approach the males of the worlds?"
"You leave what your Lord has created for you of mates? You are an intrusive people!"
They said, "If you do not cease O Lot, you will be among those driven out."He said, "I am in severe opposition to your acts!"
Does God approve of homosexuality? I think that's an obvious NO! Does that give us the right to go gay bashing on Friday night? No. It's between them and God. But no, it's not allowed.
How do you explain the verses I quoted above? If you're saying it's bad but not a sin... You may have a case (maybe). But if you're saying God is cool with Adam and Steve getting busy... I'd have to disagree. I don't think he's cool with it."
"2929] "You sexually approach men, you commit highway robbery, and you bring all vice to your society." But the only response from his people was to say, "Bring us God's retribution, if you are being truthful!"
"You are approaching the men out of lust instead of the women! No, you are an ignorant people!"
"Do you approach the males of the worlds?"
"You leave what your Lord has created for you of mates? You are an intrusive people!"
They said, "If you do not cease O Lot, you will be among those driven out."He said, "I am in severe opposition to your acts!"
In the Quran we are told
And We caused the white cloud to overshadow you and sent down on you the manna and the quails, (saying) Eat of the good things wherewith We have provided you - they wronged Us not, but they did wrong themselves. 2.57
And remember ye said "O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food (always); so beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth groweth, -its pot-herbs, and cucumbers, Its garlic, lentils, and onions." He said "Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye shall find what ye want!" They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing. 2.61
Here we are told how the Israelites complained about the food and requested God to give them beans and vegetables when they already were given quail and manna. Moses commented on how the Israelites would prefare the veggies and beans over the meat and actually referred to it as inferior. This argument may make sense for most people but not for a vegetarian who would not see meat as a superior food to eat.
So a heterosexual may understand the verses you quoted. But a homosexual would not understand it that way since his attraction are not for females.
The issue with homosexuality is that its a behavior and not a character so it does not tell us anything about a person. Is this homosexual a believer or a non believer? Is he a righteous person or is he dishonest and selfish? Does he speaks truth when he speaks or is he a deceiver? Homosexuality does not tell us anything about a person except his sexual preference. Is he loyal to his male partner or does he commit adultery with other partners and exploits his partners and uses them? These questions shold be looked at when he look at any homosexual and not just look at his sexual preference only.
The Quran is concerned about a person's charachter and how it affects his behavior and not just his behavior regardless of his charachter. The same could be said about alcohol or smoking cigarettes or using recreational drugs. Too many times Muslims only look at behavior without considering the more important charachter of a person like arrogance, selfishness, misserliness, disloyalty and dishonesty and enviousness etc.
What i tried to point out is that homosexuals are not mainstream and represent a minority of males so sometimes we need to take that into account when we consider the Quran since the Quran sometimes talks to different audiences but generally it speaks to mankind as a whole. The Israelites were being stubborn while the people of Lot were being aggressive and violent and arrogant since they thought that they can rape whomever they want. Whether they were homosexuals or not we do not know. Its unlikely the Israelites were vegetarians but were probably just being stubborn so maybe the people of lot are just being assholes (excuse my language). But I believe both Moses and Lot were speaking as normal human beings would speak about food and sex. But like vegetarians, homosexuality is not mainstream. And how a homsexual would look at a women is very different than how most men would look at them. So we must take that into mind when we look at the verses of the Quran.
-
Coming from a bi/gay Background, I choose not to act upon my desires and keep chaste. There is nothing un-Islamic about having sexual desires. The sin is however, in acting upon those desires. Sex outside of marriage is fornication (Zina). The fact is, most LGBT community do not have a form of spousal tie. Most change partners frequently, This is clearly ungodly. Yes of course God creates sin/sinners and righteous work, this is so he can test us, whether we choose to follow him, or follow desires/ego. I, as a reform muslim, who is attracted to both genders, choose to keep chaste until marriage, instead of acting upon carnal hedonistic desires. God did not ask for a change in the person, but rather a change in Character and conduct.
The Quran is very selective on whom we can marry and whom we cannot marry, We cannot marry women our father married, women from the same nursing mother, 2 sisters, Idol-worshiping women.... All of this help deduce that marriage is between men and women, because God set down standards to be ruled by, anyone who goes beyond the standard is wronging themselves, whether it is having intimate relationships with unlawful women, or men, or even animals, these are beyond the Standards, that is why God did not need to break down every single situation of marriage that can be allowed--He Simply set a standard, and what is beyond that standard is a sin.
Furthermore, I believe that nonsexual love and affection of the same gender is more of a coping mechanism for those who have attraction to the same gender. In many middle eastern countries/cultures for example, good friends desire a certain amount physical intimacy with each other. Friendships tend to be closer to the modern American concept of a "bromance" than the American concept of friendship. Men Kiss, hug, and hold hands while walking. This is considered a normal part of society. We all desire some level of love and affection, and seeking it in loving, affectionate, platonic (nonsexual), genuine, close relationships would be a coping method here, if one chooses to remain chaste.
419 "...If you hate your women, then perhaps you may hate something which God has endowed in it much goodness."
-
Peace Family,
I seek refuge in GOD, from Satan the rejected
In the name of GOD, Most Gracious and Most MercifulThe people of Lot were vile, rape was but one of the offences, it was not a case of being born such and such
but entrenched criminal behavior of various sorts.God bless
peace
-
I think that physical contact between people, touching, caressing without any sexual content is natural and necessary. However in today's society all physical contact has been restricted to the sexual. That is depriving people of an animal legitimate snese of well being like feeling physical closeness and intimacy other than sexual intimacy. It is a modern develoment. I remember when young, girls used to go hand in hand or arm in arm as the commonest thing and there was no hitn at all of any sexual content in it. equally people used to be effusive in physical expressions.
Today many many people have dogs and they say that one good thing about having a dog is that you have physical closeness, you touch the animal and it feels good.
I find that very funny. Not that I find anything wrong in being close to a dog and enjoying its touch, but to the fact that we shun physical closeness to people, but take refuge in closeness to animals. What are we playign at? There is nothign wrong with physical intimacy with those we love. I think that is rather the lack of that non sexual intimacy which helps today to fall into the trap of unbounded indiscriminate sex life, because sex life is the only way left for physical intimacy. So sex becomes the allpurposy physical relationship. We have been led like idiots into that trap.
Mammals rojoice in physical closeness, you just have to watch how the offspring of animals pile on top of each other just for the heck of it. Like being so close was the peak of wellbeing and comfort.
Salaam
-
Peace Family,
Remember there were other societies that were destroyed because of their crimes, therefore the crimes
enunciated in the Quranic verses pertaining to those societies are unacceptable by God including homosexual
relations.Coming from a bi/gay Background, I choose not to act upon my desires and keep chaste. There is nothing un-Islamic about having sexual desires. The sin is however, in acting upon those desires. Sex outside of marriage is fornication (Zina).
The Quran is very selective on whom we can marry and whom we cannot marry, We cannot marry women our father married, women from the same nursing mother, 2 sisters, Idol-worshiping women.... All of this help deduce that marriage is between men and women, because God set down standards to be ruled by, anyone who goes beyond the standard is wronging themselves, whether it is having intimate relationships with unlawful women, or men, or even animals, these are beyond the Standards, that is why God did not need to break down every single situation of marriage that can be allowed--He Simply set a standard, and what is beyond that standard is a sin.Agreed
Lot said to his people, "You commit such an abomination; no one in the world has done it before!
"You practice sex with the men, instead of the women. Indeed, you are a transgressing people.""Do you have sex with the males, of all the people? "You forsake the wives that your Lord
has created for you! Indeed, you are transgressing people."And GOD made for you spouses from among yourselves, and produced for you from your spouses
children and grandchildren, and provided you with good provisions. Should they believe in falsehood,
and turn unappreciative of GOD's blessings?God bless
peace
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
Peace Family,
Remember there were other societies that were destroyed because of their crimes, therefore the crimes
enunciated in the Quranic verses pertaining to those societies are unacceptable by God including homosexual
relations.
AgreedLot said to his people, "You commit such an abomination; no one in the world has done it before!
"You practice sex with the men, instead of the women. Indeed, you are a transgressing people.""Do you have sex with the males, of all the people? "You forsake the wives that your Lord
has created for you! Indeed, you are transgressing people."And GOD made for you spouses from among yourselves, and produced for you from your spouses
children and grandchildren, and provided you with good provisions. Should they believe in falsehood,
and turn unappreciative of GOD's blessings?God bless
peace
C'mon...it has been demonstrated seriously that homosexuality far predates the people of Lot. Is the Qur'an in error? Nah! The abomination is clearly something other than homosexual acts.
Not just men were destroyed from the people of Lot. Were the women and children spared, or likewise destroyed? Isn't this a clue?
There is also the thorny "problem" of homosexuality being common in nature...even among mosquitos.
226 GOD does not shy away from putting forth the example of a mosquito, or anything above it. As for those who believe, they know that it is the truth from their Lord. As for the rejecters, they say "What does GOD intend with this example?" He strays many by it, and He guides many by it; but He only strays by it the wicked.
244 Do you exhort the people to do good, but forget yourselves, while you are reciting the Book? Do you not comprehend?
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
Yes, I insist that what the people of Lut did was not the mere fact of homosexual relations. Come to that, God should have destroyed the ancient greeks several times over.
What the people of Lut did would nto have been any better had they done to women what they did to males, would it? Part of the evilness seems to have been the fact of it being almost universal, except for the bunch of Lut's followers. Was Lut's wife also destroyed for aping males or females? It seems it was more for setting a standard of social mores that were beastly, violent, gangsters... A violent and mob behaviour so ingrained that nothing but doing away with them all would get them out of it. Greeks were commonly engaging in same sex relations all the time, but since they did not become universally violent on that coun, God let them go on.
All the confusion about the evilness of Lut's people seems to rest on Lut's words that seem to lead to the thought that had they done all those evil, beastly ganging and mobbing to women it would have been all right. But that cannot be the expplanation or we would be upholding a hell society. So it must be something else that Lut intended with his words. As far as I can weight the events as narrated by the Qur'an, he was buying time, and indeed, as the vents turned out, that is what he did indeed. Those silly comments of hinting at them trying something as "innocent" as raping women put off for a day the plans of his people, thus allowiing him and his followers to leave the city during the night and be spared. I very much doubt that he would have given away his daughters or female followers to be raped or that he had at any time any such intention. He put forward that offer in the trust that it would be rejected with contempt, as it indeed was.
So no, if we want hoosexual relations condemned int he Qur'an it must be supported by other ayas than those of the people of Lut, because the ayas on the people of Lut do not deal with that, but with a society that set sexual violence as a social standard.
Salaam
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
C'mon...it has been demonstrated seriously that homosexuality far predates the people of Lot. Is the Qur'an in error? Nah! The abomination is clearly something other than homosexual acts.
Not just men were destroyed from the people of Lot. Were the women and children spared, or likewise destroyed? Isn't this a clue?
There is also the thorny "problem" of homosexuality being common in nature...even among mosquitos.
226 GOD does not shy away from putting forth the example of a mosquito, or anything above it. As for those who believe, they know that it is the truth from their Lord. As for the rejecters, they say "What does GOD intend with this example?" He strays many by it, and He guides many by it; but He only strays by it the wicked.
244 Do you exhort the people to do good, but forget yourselves, while you are reciting the Book? Do you not comprehend?
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
Peace,
Let me clarify-
Lot was speaking to his people as a group & a community, not just isolated cases of homo-sexual-intimacy. This would be the reason why Lot states "No one has ever done before"..... We do not know of a community, before Lot's people, in the Quran that practiced widespread homosexual intimacy.
-
We cannot simply look at nature and derive what is sexually sound and moral and what isn't. Animals also have incest, homosexual behavior, multiple partners or orgies, you cannot look at that and justify that this is ok to also practice these, i.e just because it is found in "nature", does not guarantee a morally sound stamp on it.
-
God has specifically commanded us Laws about whom we can and whom we cannot marry, these laws cannot be understood without having a hetero-sex couple. If we superimpose 2 people from the same sex, these laws would be invalid, (e.g you cannot marry your mother or two sisters, but what about marrying your father or marrying two brothers ! ) Same Sex Marriage would thus not work if we superimpose the Quranic Marriage laws on top, because the standard was always between men and women, and, anything beyond that standard is a transgress.
-