Does Islam allow homosexuality?
-
Abuwahu is only used twice in the Quran, once in 411 and in 1880.
While in 411, Abuwahu seemingly is used as a male-female.
The word in 1880, Abuwahu is most likely used as a male-male.
Every word in the Quran is used with much thought, Abuwahu gives a disputed definition in 1880 than it does in 411, it makes sense it refers to two males.
Once again, the point stands. 1880 refers to two male parents.
-
According to your study, what is the context of the verse 1880?
Khidr kills a son who is a criminal, the son had in his intentions to oppress his fathers' homosexual relationship and belief in the One God.
He killed him, in hope for God will give the two men a new son to adopt.
-
No homosexual relation can result in a child being conceived. Therefore the fact that a dual for a parent is used can only mean mmale female. If we were dealing with a wider meaning of the word ab beyond the biological ascendancy then fine, but no indication that for that anybody needs to engage with sexual relationship of any kind whatsoever. It would be a non biological relationship. Who cares for the sexualcomings and goings of anybody. We caninject asmany novels as we like into the event, but the Qur'an says absolute nothing, we are on our own on that count.
Salaam
-
No homosexual relation can result in a child being conceived. Therefore the fact that a dual for a parent is used can only mean mmale female. If we were dealing with a wider meaning of the word ab beyond the biological ascendancy then fine, but no indication that for that anybody needs to engage with sexual relationship of any kind whatsoever. It would be a non biological relationship. Who cares for the sexualcomings and goings of anybody. We caninject asmany novels as we like into the event, but the Qur'an says absolute nothing, we are on our own on that count.
Salaam
Children can be adopted, too. Does it say the son was biological? No, reason can quickly give insight to this is in reference to an adopted child. The word used is not dual for a parent, but a masculine dual, meaning the term is indicating male, but does not restrict to it.
The fact that Quran has such a beautiful linguistic structure and the term in question is only used twice. It makes perfect sense that first time, it is used in context of dual parents - male and female - while the second time, it is used in its masculine form - male and male.
That's the linguistic beauty of Quran, the words are not used in absolute random forms, but chosen carefully.
God chose this form of saying "parents," in this context, where little is to indicate it is about dual parenting.
-
peace all,
Note the illogical and baseless deduction (highlighted)
Abuwahu is only used twice in the Quran, once in 411 and in 1880.
While in 411, Abuwahu seemingly is used as a male-female.
The word in 1880, Abuwahu is most likely used as a male-male.
Every word in the Quran is used with much thought, Abuwahu gives a disputed definition in 1880 than it does in 411, it makes sense it refers to two males.
Once again, the point stands. 1880 refers to two male parents.
Perhaps you mean to say "It could refer to either, I think it's male-male"
In other words your baseless personal opinion.
-
peace all,
Note the illogical and baseless deduction (highlighted)
Perhaps you mean to say "It could refer to either, I think it's male-male"
In other words your baseless personal opinion.
Please give me your evidence for your claim, since you think it is a fact other than the mere conjecture your claim truly is.
I repeat, the Quran wouldn't have used a masculine (albeit dual, but dual form is infrequent in use) form with a vague definition for no reason, there is always a reason for the linguistics of the Quran with rhythm, would you say the choice of words in the Quran is random and with no depth? Ludicrous.
First time used as a dual form. Second time used as a male form, it makes perfect sense. Just like the word "dahaha" in the Quran has a dual meaning, a flat and a sphere (a linguistic perfection of the Quran, it never misuse its words randomly, it uses them with wisdom and care, gives them duality because it contains more depth than a superficial synonym) - without question you would choose the sphere form of the word because it fits to your tastes, but not the male form of the masculine dual form of 'parents' because you are an adherent of homophobia, I surmise.
-
Well if it does or doesn't should we care? It should still be allowed to co-exist as this is what ethics and morals say. I believe that homosexuals have the every right to become Muslim just like anybody else. Islam is a religion which anybody could convert to regardless of ethnicity, gender and sexuality. Now I was born in a country were homosexuals have equal rights(Indeed Sweden is a very amazing tolerant country) and there are some who are even Imams too. I remember reading on the news that there was a homosexual Imam that wanted to start his own mosque and he has the every right to do so. Homosexuality is no threat to Islam. I will tell you what is actually a threat to Islam it's those 'Muslim' extremist imbeciles like Anjem Choudary. Absolute garbage.
Anyway my point is that religion should not be used on what is allowed or not. Sure you can discuss what is allowed and what is not allowed in Islam but religion has no right to say what is allowed or not in a country. Regardless whether homosexuality is allowed in Islam or not the people need to modernize the religion. If any religion is a true religion then it should not call the death on homosexuals because homosexuality is no crime and infact it should allow homosexuality to co-exist. People need to abandon their conservative view on homosexuality and start accepting reality. As a heterosexual I have nothing against homosexuals infact I believe in their right to do whatever they want as long as it does not harm anybody else.
-
Dr. Ghali
"And as for the youth, then his parents (Literally his two fathers) were believers; so we were apprehensive he would oppress them with (his) in ordinance and disbelief."
Abuah is Arabic for "fathers," a person don't use this word unless it means that both of the parents to a child are male, indicating a homosexual parenting. It should also be said that Prophet Khidr killed the two homosexual fathers' son because he was a criminal and disbeliever, he feared he would oppress his fathers, most likely due to their homosexuality and monotheism.
We know that God accepts homosexuals as believers, this verse is proof of it.
The Mosaic law abrogates the law of Lot. Moses came at least a millennium after Lot. Therefore, homosexuality is not a sin, it's very clear by this verse that homosexuality is accepted by God and is compatible to Islam.
Than why ALLAH destroyed the people of Lut?
-
The community of Lut was destroyed for more than mere homosexuality. It kidnapped, robbed and abused people.
Salaam
-
Than why ALLAH destroyed the people of Lut?
That was a thousand years before Moses became a Prophet and they were destroyed because they were bad people, not because they were homosexuals (if they were).
Prophet David was a homosexual as a further proof after Moses, meaning the homosexuality law was abrogated by the later Prophets.
-
Apart from what SaraY says which is right,
Either it is a biological child either it is not. If it is a biological child it must be female and male, if it is not, it does not matter at all that the two parents engage in sexual relations or do not engage in sexual relations, it would be adopted and to adopt a child you do not need to have sexual relations with anybody whatsoever.
Salaam
-
No thanks, anal sex should be a sin, but perhaps oral sex with a man; I will try it.
Prophet David was a homosexual as a further proof after Moses, meaning the homosexuality law was abrogated by the later Prophets.
On sunni and shia websites they have called you an infidel, now I see why. They were right. You need help.
-
At least David must have had a wife at some point in his life since he fathered Solomon. If David would have had a homosexual alignment, at least he had heterosexual intercourse at least once. And in traditional historical records (Bible etc) he fathered several children.
There is no hint at David being attracted to men anywhere. Where is that from?
There is no use in having a homosexual relationship since the reason for marriage is to complement man vs woman attributes beyond mere child production. The one who marries for sex have misunderstood the meaning of life.
Salaam
-
This is absurd!
Our Master doesn't approve of lewdness! (6151, 733)
Can you (islamo-aleikum) tell us who is the addressee in 415-16 ?
415 ~ ...
416 ~ ...In context, it is clear that G-D is addressing men!
If you agree, then why did He use a masc. dual in 416?
If not, then why did He ordain 2 different punishments (for 2 parties guilty of the same)? -
It is not like I approve of homosexuality per se, but that the given passages (415-16) speak of what is traditionally claimed is highly doubtful.
Salaam
