Homosexuality LGBTQI and the deen
-
Thank you so much for answering my call to try to understand and answer, and I mean it and i appreciate, but, brother , I still dont see punishment for homosexualitu in that verse anywhere. I only see condemnation of adultery and promiscuity
How can God tell us to trouble them until they repent if they can't change their nature?
Maybe because the verse is not talking ablut homosexuality but about adultery?Why hasn't got the Quran a word for homosexuality? You have for thief, for adulterer, for murderer...
Btw I was being sarcastic with the "defective" adjective, i thought it was obvious.
Anyway, that is my point, and I dont expect everybody to share my point so I will leave the topic...
May God guide us all to the truth and best peace
Salam,
it's right there. I'll try to explain more precisely, God-willing, others will understand.
415 And those of your women who commit lewdness, you shall bring
four witnesses over them from among you; if they bear witness,
then you shall restrict them in the homes until death terminates
their lives, or God makes for them a way out.416 And the two men who commit it from among you, you shall
trouble them. If they repent and reform, then leave them alone.
God is Redeemer, Merciful.So in the two verses it's regarding lewdness. "Women who commit lewdness" so we know it's an act and not only talking about sexual desire etc. but acting upon it.
We know that lewdness can be many things; among it we can include homosexual acts. But which kind of lewdness are the verses about? In 415 we are only told women, not any numbers etc.Let's continue to next verse 416.
416 And the two men who commit it from among you, you shall
trouble them. If they repent and reform, then leave them alone.
God is Redeemer, Merciful.So it becomes more clear in the next verse which lewdness these verses are about.
- "And" means it's a continuation of verse 415, so it's still same subject.
- The strongest proof it's about homosexuality is that it says "the two men", instead of "the men" like previous verse when it said "the women". In which way can two men commit lewdness? Homosexuality.
- "It" meaning lewdness.
- Reform. You might disagree on this one, but someone who's an homosexual needs to reform, while adulterers need to stop.
To wrap it up, it becomes VERY clear from verse 416 (the two men instead of the men) that these verses are regarding those who commit homosexual acts.
THE TWO MEN
Salam
-
Not necessarily !
For sure He is, my God is God of everything.
My worldview has it that God does not promote immorality.
Mine too.
As I said before, I don't see the Quran espousing your belief. But please do enlighten my ignorance.
Whenever you feel like it
Like I said to Imran, you and I probably understand the quran differently, so it's actually useless to bring in the quran.
But I like to know your opinion about the next 2 verses (the red parts), I also like to see how Imran, Rekkd and A Submitter read those verses
2221
2432
btw I understand those verses totally different from the popular view, but I have a feeling that some of you will have some trouble to make this fit.
For me the next couple of verses are enough to understand that I have nothing to say in His decisions, He knows better than me.
-
Like I said to Imran, you and I probably understand the quran differently, so
Howcome ?!
it's actually useless to bring in the quran.
Useless said he )
But I like to know your opinion about the next 2 verses (the red parts), I also like to see how Imran, Rekkd and A Submitter read those verses
2221
2432
btw I understand those verses totally different from the popular view, but I have a feeling that some of you will have some trouble to make this fit.
For me the next couple of verses are enough to understand that I have nothing to say in His decisions, He knows better than me.
None of these passages address the issue in question, bender ! nope
Well.... unless you -deliberately- mistranslate tempt
-
Howcome ?!
We are different people
Useless said he
Yes useless in such discussion.
None of these passages address the issue in question, bender ! nope
Well.... unless you -deliberately- mistranslate tempt
I told you I had a feeling that you would have some trouble with these verses.
And this is one of the reasons I think bringing in the quran is useless in such discussions.The question was not how I mistranslate them, I know how I misunderstand those verses, I was more interested in your non-mistranslated opinion.
Let's see if the others also have some trouble in translating the red parts. -
416 And the two men
Yes, you are right, submitter.
" and the two (masc dual) who commit it AMONG YOU "
Quran here is speaking to believing MEN (in specific).
Which is why 'YOUR WOMENfolk' got mentioned aforetime.Peace -- the above is FALSE! TWO MEN is written exactly thus...
2282 ... so if not being dual rajulayni/menfolk two ...
1676... menfolk two one of them dumb ...
1832 and strikes/shows for them similitude of menfolk two
2815 ... so found therein menfolk two415 and the ones who (feminine pl.) commit al-fishata/the immorality from nisakum/womenfolk yours...
416 wa-alladhni/and the two (i.e. any two any sex; mf; ff; mm) who ... -
Peace -- the above is FALSE! TWO MEN is written exactly thus...
2282 ... so if not being dual rajulayni/menfolk two ...
1676... menfolk two one of them dumb ...
1832 and strikes/shows for them similitude of menfolk two
2815 ... so found therein menfolk two415 and the ones who (feminine pl.) commit al-fishata/the immorality from nisakum/womenfolk yours...
416 wa-alladhni/and the two (i.e. any two any sex; mf; ff; mm) who ...(alladhni) - the dual form of (alladi) - is linguistically used in reference to a masculine dual noun.
Nevertheless, the author of the Quran is addressing MEN, as far as context is concerned.
" and the two (masc dual) who commit it AMONG YOU
Quran here is speaking to believing MEN in specific
Which is why 'YOUR WOMENfolk' got mentioned aforetime.And those who commit 'fahichah' AMONG YOUR WOMEN
All-knowing indeed.
salam
-
Peace -- the above is FALSE! TWO MEN is written exactly thus...
2282 ... so if not being dual rajulayni/menfolk two ...
1676... menfolk two one of them dumb ...
1832 and strikes/shows for them similitude of menfolk two
2815 ... so found therein menfolk two415 and the ones who (feminine pl.) commit al-fishata/the immorality from nisakum/womenfolk yours...
416 wa-alladhni/and the two (i.e. any two any sex; mf; ff; mm) who ...Thank you so much! They are "two" people who could be 2 men or a man and a woman. That is why i dont seee homosexuality here... Because if we see homosexuality here then going to 235 Adam is indeed with a Steve rotfl
And why do we apply the later dual to the plural before changing it? I am not well versed in Arabic but first time I see something like this
-
You are so lucky, boys, the Quran is all addressed to you. Why did not God send a Quran for women ? '(
The Quran is an inspired memorandum sent for Adamites en masse. It does address women.
However, in this case, it is addressing men in specific. The same goes in context of war, etc...It's not a sign of superiority, but responsibility.
-
(alladhni) - the dual form of (alladi) - is linguistically used in reference to a masculine dual noun.
Nevertheless, the author of the Quran is addressing MEN, as far as context is concerned.
No.
23 alladhna/the ones (pl. any sex)
416 wa-alladhni/and the two (any two; any sex)
2191 wa-allat/and the one (any female)
4617 and the one (anyone; any sex) said to parents dual said person uff!Again if applicable TWO MEN would be written exactly thus...
2282 ... so if not being dual rajulayni/menfolk two farajulun/so man wa-im'ra-atni/and women two
-
Again )
Two different parties getting two different penalties for committing the same criminal act
And those (fem.) who commit 'fahichah' AMONG YOUR WOMEN, penalty X as follows...
And the two (masc.) who commit IT AMONG YOU , penalty Y as follows...
Hope this helps.
-
Again
Hope this helps.
Actually it doesn't. Either "you" has the only meaning of "men" either dual masculine is only "2 male" unless you want to read it like that punishing people for something you can't even tell 100%.
and, excuse me but ... are you telling me women can not administrate justice because "men" have that respondability (not superiority, as you said) and so "in this context" we are not addressed?. Can't women rule?
I want a female Quran > It is unfair
Man, I am absolutely reading a very different book from yours...
-
Peace -- the above is FALSE! TWO MEN is written exactly thus...
2282 ... so if not being dual rajulayni/menfolk two ...
1676... menfolk two one of them dumb ...
1832 and strikes/shows for them similitude of menfolk two
2815 ... so found therein menfolk two415 and the ones who (feminine pl.) commit al-fishata/the immorality from nisakum/womenfolk yours...
416 wa-alladhni/and the two (i.e. any two any sex; mf; ff; mm) who ...Indeed.
Also this is addressed not to men but to the same addressee that is mentioned at the beginning of the sura and which has not changed. The women are not of any men but the women of the samongst the people, also the women of the women. The fact that it speaks about women does not mean that the addresse has changed, in the same way as if it said "your men", your men are the men of the group.
Those determined to make 4.15. and 4.16 refer to homosexual behaviour have no grounds for that. In 4.15 the plural is feminine but nowhere is it hinted that the fahisha that is mentionned is of women with each other or in group. It refers to any and all women that regularly commit fahisha since the verb is uncompleted action, fahisha of whatever kind. One category of women who fit perfectly the formulation are prostitutes. That understood, it is logical to understand that 4.16 is speaking of the prostitute and the client.
The fahisha spoken of here is soliciting or obvious things like that, not zina, since zina is not mentionned and fahisha is a much wider category than zina and zina is already dealt with elsewhere. But the four witnesses required in this aya are not required to testify for zina but to testify for fahisha. And the women for whom that testimony is given are to be put into the houses (taken off the street) till they get another means of living or till they die.
The clients of prostitutes have never been subjected to any
rebuke or anything like that till the modern Swedish law which makes them punishable, but the Qur'an contrary to long tradition everywhere and closer to the Swedish law, on the other hand says not to let them get away with it without rebuking them and calling them to order.Societies have always pried on the prostitues but left clients enjoy the best (or rather worst) of both worlds.
No hint that these two ayas refer in any particular way to homosexual behaviour with exclusion of heterosexual behaviour. NO HINT AT ALL.
Salaam
Salaam
-
Actually it doesn't. Either "you" has the only meaning of "men" either dual masculine is only "2 male" unless you want to read it like that punishing people for something you can't even tell 100%.
and, excuse me but ... are you telling me women can not administrate justice because "men" have that respondability (not superiority, as you said) and so "in this context" we are not addressed?. Can't women rule?
I want a female Quran >( It is unfair
Man, I am absolutely reading a very different book from yours...
It is an inconsistent book, is it not?
Lose not faith, that inconsistency is just an illusion.
Be well
Amenuel -
I have 4 main points to make
-
The causality of homosexuality has no bearing on its predicament of legality or illegality in the Dn, whatsoever. I strongly suggest that if we wish to continue the discussion of its causality, then we should do so in a separate thread. The title of this thread clearly relates to the predicament of homosexuality as it relates to the Dn.
-
I am strongly of the conviction that if something is not prohibited in the Quran then it must be assumed to be lawful. I form this conviction on the numerous verses that condemn "he who imputes a lie to God." (See 394, 621, 694, 6144, 737 and many more).
-
There is no explicit prohibition against homosexuality in the Quran issued by God in the first person.
-
Notwithstanding the fact stated in point 3, there are still statements in the Quran (or absence of statements) that leave me with a lingering suspicion of the outright legality of homosexuality. I will summarise my position in the following points
• Although I agree with the view that messengers were susceptible to error, whenever they do err, their error is marked out as being wrong and God addresses it; this is not the case with L's condemnation of homosexuality.
• The word (stated by God in the first person) may be suggestive of homosexuality in 2174 as it relates to the practice of the people of L, and in 7157 are stated as being prohibited. I should make it clear that there is no conclusive link between the clause Was wont to practice abominable acts and homosexuality, I merely suggest the existence of a link.
• L did not "offer" his daughters to his people, instead, he merely indicated their existence; to this end, the Quran quotes L as using the word in 1178 and 1571. There is a clear linguistic difference between These are my daughters and Here! Take my daughters the prior is a demonstrative sentence, the latter imperative. It is important that we do not muddy the meanings of the text of the Quran.
• The argument that "what is beyond that" in 424 includes in its scope males is refuted. One cannot link an unrelated pattern to the pattern found in 423. That is to say, the pattern found in 423 relates to females, and the addressees are assumed to be men, how then do we relate males to the sequence of females mentioned in the verse? If this rule didn't hold fast, then one could make the argument, using the same principles, that one's male relatives have not been prohibited in marriage based on the fact that this verse does not mention them, and this then restricts the scope of 423 to female incest, whereas male incest, using this logic, is permissible. So I disagree with the notion that "what is beyond that" in 424 includes males (related or unrelated) in its scope.
• In 5437 we read that the people of L were punished as a direct result of their having enticed his guests And verily by , they had enticed him to turn from his guests, so we blinded them; taste My punishment and My warnings! The reader is left to ponder the consequence of this verse.
• The phrase means (rough translation) Will you indeed lie with men out of lust to the exclusion of women? This is a statement attributed to L in 781. I wanted to make its meaning clear as there seemed to be some confusion regarding its meaning.
• Even still, all provisions relating to marriage, dowry, divorce, children, nursing children and inheritance speak within the context of a man-woman relationship. The lack of provisions relating to homosexual marriage, dowry, divorce etc. leaves homosexuals wanting for guidance from God.
To sum up, although God has issued no explicit prohibition against homosexuality, the tone of the Quran, as far as I can see, towards homosexuality is certainly not one of complete impassivity, and tends to lean towards considering it a sin.
The onus would lie on each individual to disimpassion their minds and to objectively assess the verses and pass his or her judgment on the matter.
-
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
Thank you for the quality of your post, uq. My comments (within quote) are in red.
...
• Although I agree with the view that messengers were susceptible to error, whenever they do err, their error is marked out as being wrong and God addresses it; this is not the case with L's condemnation of homosexuality.
Lot (Peace upon all Prophets) said that the people did an evil not seen before. Since he wasn?t addressed as being wrong, and homosexual acts in organized societies existed long before the people of Lot, this indicates that homosexual acts are not the main issue here.
• The argument that "what is beyond that" in 424 includes in its scope males is refuted. One cannot link an unrelated pattern to the pattern found in 423. That is to say, the pattern found in 423 relates to females, and the addressees are assumed to be men, how then do we relate males to the sequence of females mentioned in the verse? If this rule didn't hold fast, then one could make the argument, using the same principles, that one's male relatives have not been prohibited in marriage based on the fact that this verse does not mention them, and this then restricts the scope of 423 to female incest, whereas male incest, using this logic, is permissible. So I disagree with the notion that "what is beyond that" in 424 includes males (related or unrelated) in its scope.
Refuted is a strong statement--maybe argued/disputed is meant? If one is being absolute in linking unrelated patterns, it could be argued that any society other than the people of Lot is a unique pattern and unrelated to the statements made by the Prophet Lot. It can be one way or the other, but not both at the same time.
Are same-sex incest among consenting adults even a common issue, or one that needs societal scrutiny? Biological defects in offspring could not be an issue, because biological offspring wouldn't be possible. Would a consenting woman of age be forbidden from marrying her widowed mother under 423--or would it not apply because (under some understandings) it is addressed solely to men? hmm
• In 5437 we read that the people of L were punished as a direct result of their having enticed his guests And verily by , they had enticed him to turn from his guests, so we blinded them; taste My punishment and My warnings! The reader is left to ponder the consequence of this verse.
Was Lot's wife homosexual? She was of the doomed, as were other women and children. The people also challenged the Almighty in 2929...
2929 "You approach the males, and you sever the way, and you bring all vice into your place." But the only response from his people was to say "Bring us the retribution of GOD, if you are being truthful!"
• The phrase means (rough translation) Will you indeed lie with men out of lust to the exclusion of women? This is a statement attributed to L in 781. I wanted to make its meaning clear as there seemed to be some confusion regarding its meaning.
Is it okay to lie with (or attempt to lie with) women out of lust? Whether in lustful fornication or by excluding their spouses in adulterous lust, the men were surely in the wrong.
• Even still, all provisions relating to marriage, dowry, divorce, children, nursing children and inheritance speak within the context of a man-woman relationship. The lack of provisions relating to homosexual marriage, dowry, divorce etc. leaves homosexuals wanting for guidance from God.
The provisions provide protections that may not be necessary within a same sex relationship--which may be two women or two men.
To sum up, although God has issued no explicit prohibition against homosexuality, the tone of the Quran, as far as I can see, towards homosexuality is certainly not one of complete impassivity, and tends to lean towards considering it a sin.
The onus would lie on each individual to disimpassion their minds and to objectively assess the verses and pass his or her judgment on the matter.
If one thinks a thing distasteful (and it is not required ) then avoid it for oneself. Others may not find the same thing distasteful, and we shouldn't be unpleasant or unjust because of a differing of opinion.
Avoiding being unpleasant to others isn't the same as promoting any viewpoint/understanding, and being nasty to others is incompatible with the deen.
ALLAH knows best.
~Abdul-Hadi