What is the Qur'ans stance on homosexuality?

[si_di]

I agree with runniglikezebra ,the act want to do it's all about the Messengers.

Imaging These guys were rufnecks they were fighting since they were childs,it was a hard Environment,so does lut, they knew how hard he can fight and he had the biggest ally in this Region his uncle Abbraham.

And suddenly some handsome guys visited Lut,i don't think the messengers looked like someone who had to work hard everyday and from time time involved with fierce fighting.They looked like rich People and the gangs from Sodom wanted to Show them,if they want to stay there,where there rank is.

[runninglikezebras]

Possibly. We can only speculate. The fascination is to me also explained in the ambiguity of the identity of Luts visitors - where they angels? There are hints in the text saying they were. Add to this the verb used and it all makes sense. One would be drawn to angels just like one would be drawn to magic. The occurences of the same verb used add more weight to this understanding.

Notice also the verse where God asks why of all creatures they choose the men? This does not ask us why did they pick men as an opposite of women. It's referring to messengers/angels of all creatures including humans. If this was not referring to something beyond humans, it would have been phrased "why of all people they choose the men".

[si_di]

Has some one looked up the word "min doun"?

As far as i know it is used for a lot of different meanings,it is also used for escpecially so it can also mean" you are approaching men lustful but especially woman(suffer from your lust)"

But this is only what i remember i've read sometime ago,no qurantee.

[runninglikezebras]

I have looked into it but dont have a definite answer. It seems to point to an exception, exclusion. Min doun Allah = besides Allah, outside Allah. But I dont see much relevance in the light of the correct translation. People of sodom were offered nisa (daughters of Lut), but they chose min doun nissa the riyal. The riyal being the messengers. They did not approach them lustful they were drawn to them. Like one is drawn to magic or something remarkable.

[unknownuser]

I must say that Crow, recite, Man of Faith, Abdul-Hadi, and runninglikezebras have provided some of the most insightful replies on this thread, and I am most grateful for them. Others have also provided very good questions and insights, as well.

To clarify, though I believe it is completely unnecessary and should be considered irrelevant, I myself am heterosexual. Some people wonder why would I care so much if I am not homosexual?

Well, is this the same logic we should apply to others who live in ways that are unlike our own, or experience what we don't? I have never been assaulted, so why should I care about others who have been? I have never been murdered, so why should I care about others who have been? I think that should clarify my curiosity.

Allah bless you all for helping me understand the issue. I know there must be many threads discussing this topic, and some of you have expressed your resultant exasperation and exhaustion of which I am sympathetic towards, so I am most grateful for all of your patience and delicacy in providing insightful replies.

Salaam,

Bilal

[reel]

I think this person makes some good points about homosexuality.

http//www.texasislam.com/2012/10/homosexuality-in-islam.html

Apparently, there is punishment for same gender sex. Once again, I would stick to bi because I can't imagine Allah telling a woman in man's body to marry another woman.

[good_logic]

Peace All.

Translate this summary from Qoran and you have your answer folks?

7029

7030

7031

GOD bless you all.
Peace.

[Abdul-Hadi]

Greetings and Peace, all group

There is a simple explanation. Look at the word that is often translated as "spouse." It appears that "mate" or "pair" is a better translation, and these are gender neutral. Plants and livestock don't have spouses, and the same word root is used. The use of the word "their" in 7030 changes azwjan into azwjihim; the meaning is unchanged. A quick example

26 These are the ones guided by their Lord , and these are the successful ones.

Notice how the word rabbi is modified into rabbihim by the use of "their?" In this same way, azwjan is modified into azwjihim.

Also, based on 425, same-sex marriage is permitted because it is beyond what is prohibited; it is indeed possible for same-sex people to be married/spouses--so even ~if~ 7030 refers solely to spouses, it does not exclude homosexuals.

Peace All.

Translate this summary from Qoran and you have your answer folks?

7029

7030

7031

GOD bless you all.
Peace.

425 And the independent from the women, except those maintained by your oaths; the book of GOD over you; and permitted for you is what is beyond this, if you are seeking with your money to be independent, not for illicit sex. As for those whom you have already had joy with, then you shall give them their dowries as an obligation. There is no sin upon you for what you agree on after the obligation. GOD is Knowledgeable, Wise.

6143 Eight in from the lambs two, and from the goats two. Say "Is it the two males that He forbade or the two females, or what the wombs of the two females bore? Inform me if you are truthful!"

2053 The One who made for you the earth habitable and He made ways for you in it, and He brought down water from the sky, so We brought out with it of vegetation of all types.

3511 And GOD created you from dust, then from a seed, then He made you into . And no female becomes pregnant, nor gives birth, without His knowledge. Nor does anyone have his life extended, or his life is shortened, except in a record. This is easy for GOD.

4211 Initiator of the heavens and the earth. He created for you from among yourselves , and also for the livestock so they may multiply. There is nothing that equals Him. He is the Hearer, the Seer.

7029 And those who keep covered their private parts.
7030 Except around or those maintained by their oaths, there is no blame.
7031 Whoever seeks anything beyond this, they are the transgressors.

788 And We created you in ?

ALLAH knows best.

peace

~Abdul-Hadi

[runninglikezebras]

I must say that Crow, recite, Man of Faith, Abdul-Hadi, and runninglikezebras have provided some of the most insightful replies on this thread, and I am most grateful for them. Others have also provided very good questions and insights, as well.

To clarify, though I believe it is completely unnecessary and should be considered irrelevant, I myself am heterosexual. Some people wonder why would I care so much if I am not homosexual?

Well, is this the same logic we should apply to others who live in ways that are unlike our own, or experience what we don't? I have never been assaulted, so why should I care about others who have been? I have never been murdered, so why should I care about others who have been? I think that should clarify my curiosity.

Allah bless you all for helping me understand the issue. I know there must be many threads discussing this topic, and some of you have expressed your resultant exasperation and exhaustion of which I am sympathetic towards, so I am most grateful for all of your patience and delicacy in providing insightful replies.

Salaam,

Bilal

You're most welcome. Though I'm still pretty upset about this whole topic. Why? Not because of people who are homophobic, that is their own choice. I'm upset because even in the Quranist Reformist Translation there is a clearly traceable hadith contamination kept intact that is trying to further promote homophobia as a Quranic principle. To me this is shocking and makes me rather pessimistic about the whole reformist, quranist movement. If our quranist translators give themselves the same liberty as the hadith inspired translators to instill non-islamic opinions into the text then this whole movement is rendered corrupt. Look at verse 2929 in the online Quran on this website? Do you agree with that hadith translation which is proven wrong for many reasons? Should people just instill their personal opinions into Quranic translations? No.

Dont you think it's ironic? We restored the verses that falsely were translated as chopping of hands. We pointed out stoning is nowhere to be found in Quran. We showed the world the verses about wearing a headscarf are hadith contaminations. What is all this worth if we keep a non-islamic culturally spread feeling of homophobia inside the Quran translations we offer? This makes us hypocrites and not a cent better than bukhari, al muslim and all the others we blame for having damaged Islam and Quran.

I have tried to contact Edip Yuksel on this matter, but he seems to be running like ... (finish sentence yourself wink)

Let me break down 2929 so you can see the verse does not even mention "sexually"

a-innakum Indeed you

latatna Approach / Are drawn to (like drawn to magic)

l-rijla The men (genderless) referring to the angels that visited Lut

wataqana and you cut off/seperate from

l-sabla way/channel/source

watatna and commit

f in

ndkumu your meetings

l-munkara evil

Together

"Indeed you are drawn to/approach men and cut off/obstruct their way and commit evil."

Clarification of sabeel

Look back at the story of Lut. This cutting of the way can be interpreted in more than one way here are some suggestions

1. The Messengers tell Lut to escape in the night and not look back. This implies they could not leave without permission and were being obstructed to do so.
2. The rushing crowd approaching on Lut and his remarkable visitors (angels), blocked their path. Lut and the messenger were surrounded by the crowd, they had no way to escape from them. This also adds up with the desperate/self sacrificing negotiation Lut tried to start up with the crowd, with little success.

One thing that is for sure, is that highway robbery here is farfetched and at the same time unprecedented in the other chapters involving Luts story. Contextually it doesnt make sense either. What highway are they travelling on? Lut and his visitors were inside the city they were not travelling on the road.

Now where is the arabic word for sexual, lust or desire in this phrase? The hadith liars were able to easily instill it in 781 - even though "with desire" there relates to the verb meaning approaching with desire, rushing to, being irresistibly drawn to - because it has riyal and nisa (men and women) in one verse. 2929 does not have this property, still it did not prevent them to just add "with desire" or "sexually". 781 and 2929 repeat the same judgment God makes on the people that threatened Lut and his messengers. So you expect them to be consistent as Quran does not contradict itself. If you look at different translations you'll see how this created problems for them to sustain the lie they were trying to spread. Suddenly God accuses them of highway robbery as a translation of cutting off and 781 and 2929 became contradictory, so our dear hadith inspired translators just added sexually to it to make their puzzle of lies fit. It's shameful practice and I'm disgusted people are still doing this in 2014.

[good_logic]

Peace runninglikezebras.

I have read you posts,and I am sure if you explain to these "translators ""2929" giving them evidence from Qoran ,they might look at your proposal?

Also if you do not mind can you clarify your take on in this thread

Thanks in advance.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

[runninglikezebras]

I did so when I modified my previous post. I also posted this in the thread for corrections made to the FM Quran but so far no reaction.

Peace.

[good_logic]

Peace runninglikezebras.

Also you might need to look at other similar verses like AINNAKUM LATATUNA ALRIJALA SHAHWATAN MIN DOONI ALNISAA" etc..? Also do "Malaika " become like "Rijal" if they are sent to humans?i.e no difference to onlookers?..

For me to agree with you I need your case to fit into all the verses in Qoran?

So far you have only shown the following

-a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

• a favorable estimate
• a personal view, attitude .

You need to go beyond that to make a convincing case.

Please take this as my constructive view to help.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

[runninglikezebras]

Greetings and Peace, all group

There is a simple explanation. Look at the word that is often translated as "spouse." It appears that "mate" or "pair" is a better translation, and these are gender neutral. Plants and livestock don't have spouses, and the same word root is used. The use of the word "their" in 7030 changes azwjan into azwjihim; the meaning is unchanged. A quick example

26 These are the ones guided by their Lord , and these are the successful ones.

Notice how the word rabbi is modified into rabbihim by the use of "their?" In this same way, azwjan is modified into azwjihim.

Also, based on 425, same-sex marriage is permitted because it is beyond what is prohibited; it is indeed possible for same-sex people to be married/spouses--so even ~if~ 7030 refers solely to spouses, it does not exclude homosexuals.

425 And the independent from the women, except those maintained by your oaths; the book of GOD over you; and permitted for you is what is beyond this, if you are seeking with your money to be independent, not for illicit sex. As for those whom you have already had joy with, then you shall give them their dowries as an obligation. There is no sin upon you for what you agree on after the obligation. GOD is Knowledgeable, Wise.

6143 Eight in from the lambs two, and from the goats two. Say "Is it the two males that He forbade or the two females, or what the wombs of the two females bore? Inform me if you are truthful!"

2053 The One who made for you the earth habitable and He made ways for you in it, and He brought down water from the sky, so We brought out with it of vegetation of all types.

3511 And GOD created you from dust, then from a seed, then He made you into . And no female becomes pregnant, nor gives birth, without His knowledge. Nor does anyone have his life extended, or his life is shortened, except in a record. This is easy for GOD.

4211 Initiator of the heavens and the earth. He created for you from among yourselves , and also for the livestock so they may multiply. There is nothing that equals Him. He is the Hearer, the Seer.

7029 And those who keep covered their private parts.
7030 Except around or those maintained by their oaths, there is no blame.
7031 Whoever seeks anything beyond this, they are the transgressors.

788 And We created you in ?

ALLAH knows best.

peace

~Abdul-Hadi

I think you are on the right path here Abdul-Hadi. I checked some of the Quranist and Reformist translations and they all have this narrow-minded "spouse" translation in them. Your evidence for it being more likely "mate" or "pair" is very convincing.

So this offers us a challenge. The easy hadith contaminations we removed and proven to be wrong on quranic evidence slavery, polygamy, stoning, chopping of hands etc. Seems like homophobia has escaped this. I think it's not uncommon as this homophobia is very strongly culturally rooted even among quranists. We either live up to this challenge and transcend our cultural backgrounds/brainwashing OR we become another narrow-minded movement within Islam that respects all, respects human rights except those of homosexuals based on non-quranic cultural prejudice. I'm rather pessimistic about the outcome as the opposition you will face removing this last hadith influence will be enormous.

[runninglikezebras]

Peace runninglikezebras.

Also you might need to look at other similar verses like AINNAKUM LATATUNA ALRIJALA SHAHWATAN MIN DOONI ALNISAA" etc..? Also do "Malaika " become like "Rijal" if they are sent to humans?i.e no difference to onlookers?..

For me to agree with you I need your case to fit into all the verses in Qoran?

So far you have only shown the following

-a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

• a favorable estimate
• a personal view, attitude .

You need to go beyond that to make a convincing case.

Please take this as my constructive view to help.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

Please give me chapter and verse number so I can do some crosschecking. For the matter of "sexually" or "with desire" being absent in the original text of 2929 I do not see what I have to prove more. The word is simply not there.

I'm not offended. Though I do think you are ignoring the contextual evidence I have given you such as Luts daughters being the only Nisa (plural) anywhere mentioned in all the verses mentioning Lut. Show me how Nisa here means other women, excluding Luts daughters. Also, do you ignore why the word 'riyal' a genderless form of a group of men was picked in these verses. You ignore the contextual evidence approaching with desire has equivalent meaning to how the movement of the crowd on Lut is described. I think it's a bit unfair to say I'm only promoting a personal opinion and not giving any contextual, objective facts.

About riyal, look up the meaning of this word it means a group. It's a genderless form of men. It does not mean angels become man. Read the context of the story. They were angels disguised as men. If not angels, messengers from God. Why would riyal not fit the description of a group of angels/messengers? Please backup how this would contradict.

If the Nisa were not Luts daughters (which is very improbable there are no other Nisaa mentioned), and the riyal were not the messengers. The whole city was homosexual with no exception? Now wouldnt that be highly improbable? Furthermore it would imply, Luts offering of his two daughters has no weight at all in Gods judgment about the people of this city? That would be very surprising wouldnt it? Gods prophet offering his own two daughters to protect what is from God, does not add weight to their judgment. If you dont see how relevant that offering of daughters is in the story of Lut I'm afraid you completely misunderstand Lut as a prophet.

Also please explain to me why in the traditional translation 781 and 2929 would be making different charges. If the whole city was homosexual wouldnt it repeat what 781 does and repeat the "desire" in it? It should cause it's crucial for that interpretation.

Explain to me how the verb used for "approaching on" has any other occurence in Quran that involves sexuality. It is never used in that context in the entire Quran.

[good_logic]

Peace runninglikezebras.

1-I was implying verses . .........There is more where Lot is mentioned throughout Qoran. They need to be analysed in context.

2- Homosexuality needs to be defined exactly? At the moment there are different definitions in different dictionaries/books...

3- "Fahisha" and "Shahwatan"need also to be defined? etc...

To build a convincing case all these different words need to be defined and clarified so as not to leave any vague areas or contradiction in Qoran.

Thanks for enquiring .

GOD bless you.
Peace.

[runninglikezebras]

Peace

1. I'm not sure if you have read all my posts because I did refer to all the occurences of Luts story. And I'm referring to their context often. My issue is not with the other verses. My issue is with the translation of 781 and 2929 specifically. If you feel the other verses contradict what I'm saying, please provide argumentation for it so we can look into it. I'm not trying to get them all re-translated. I agree with the traditional translations there.

2. I dont even understand your question or it's relevance. There is no mentioning of homosexuality in Quran. Please provide me proof there is so we can discuss it.

Do you want me to translate the entire Quran to make a case or are you willing to go into a debate with concrete argumentation I can respond to?

Let me break this down real simple. About 2929 what more can I do there is no word for sexually or with desire in the entire phrase? If you think it's there, please show me.

[good_logic]

Peace running like zebras.

Let me give you the following example

1- Quote If the Nisa were not Luts daughters (which is very improbable there are no other Nisaa mentioned), and the riyal were not the messengers. The whole city was homosexual with no exception? Now wouldnt that be highly improbable? Furthermore it would imply, Luts offering of his two daughters has no weight at all in Gods judgment about the people of this city? That would be very surprising wouldnt it? Gods prophet offering his own two daughters to protect what is from God, does not add weight to their judgment. If you dont see how relevant that offering of daughters is in the story of Lut I'm afraid you completely misunderstand Lut as a prophet.

The "Nisa" in fits any "Nisa" ? Why not?

Also ""Rijal" of will fit any "Rajul" ? Why not?

2- For example here is one definition of Homosexuality according to one source

wikipedia.org
Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender.

Do you agree with this?

GOD bless you.
Peace.

[bookish]

I just wanna make fun of retards who claim that Quran isnt against homosexuality when it clearly is, it says that more than 5 times. I believe in Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve. They are making fun of Quran, God and creation that has been attacked through mainstream media which openly promote luciferian ideology.

I believe you know how to read, right? If you know how to read, you would have understood that Bilal isn't trying to claim anything. He's simply discussing things, and seeking answers through rational inquiry and science.

Retards are those who CHOOSE not to use their minds. They choose not to engage in rational discussion. They choose not to present any evidence for their beliefs. And they choose to think they're always right.

But they love name-calling, and they love insulting others.

Need I say more? I guess you understood who the retard is here.

[runninglikezebras]

Peace,

Fahisha meaning

fahisha (FA, HA, SH) meaning something ugly, abomination, immorality.

Other occurences 6151, 2169, 1224, 1224

None of them fit the explanation of homosexuality. It's a general word used for something immoral. To find out what is immoral we have to look at the whole Quran. Saying this Fahisha is proof for condemning homosexuality is for any logic mind a circular argumentation. In 1224 it is mentioned alongside transgression. Again it's a general label for immorality and does not specify what that immorality consists of. We do find evidence in Quran what this immorality can consist of such as killing children, the murder of oneself and the murder of others as in 6151. The list however does not contain homosexuality.

Shahwatan meaning

With desire, with wanting. In verse 781 we find latatna l-rijla shahwatan. Breaking it down let's look at the occurences of latatuna. Does it mean a sexual approachment or drawing to in the other occurences? 213 uses the same verb. It says "afatatna l-si'ra". "Are you drawn to magic?" "Would you be approaching magic?" Ask yourself, do people get drawn to magic in a sexual way? It's clear "latatuna" describes a fascination resulting in irresistible attraction as one would be by the appearance of angels, just like some would be drawn to magic.

1. It's contextual proof. I repeated many times there is no Nisa mentioned outside Luts daughters. 781 is Gods final judgment on the people of the city and their being drawn to angels instead of Luts daughters. Why would God ignore in 781 the ultimate rejection of Luts kind offer? You cant explain 781 without including that ultimate sinful act of approaching on Angels and rejecting Luts offer. It makes no sense at all the accusation would ignore the context of what preceeds the judgment and come up with some rabbit out of the hat, a brand new accusation unmentioned before that should imply homosexuality.

Concerning the riyal, I demonstrated tatuna is not just a approachment by other occurence in Quran. It's an irresistible attraction to. What in the story of Lut could have caused such attraction on the crowd if not the angels? Are you saying all the men in that city were so remarkable they drew a crowd like magic can? If you understand the meaning of tatuna, its illogical to be drawn to all the average men in the city. That is not what tatuna means.

2. Agreed.

[good_logic]

Peace runninglikezebras.

Thanks for your post. I think I understand up to a the point of "Yahfadu furujahum".

I have no problem with desires. I have no prejudice. I also strongly believe in "Freedom of choice".

However, Qoran has a limit when it comes to "Yahfadu Furujahum"! It applies to all believers

So in a way the translation of and becomes less important .

What is important is to try and understand our behaviour according to the limits of Qoran whoever we are if we believe

Also we have the warning if we disregard GOD s message

I hope that explains where I stand.

Thank you for the conversation.

GOD bless you.
Peace