Homosexuality LGBTQI and the deen
-
Salam,
Everyone calm down, we are not enemies to one another...we're discussing homosexual laws in Quran. It's very clear God is against homosexual acts including relationships.
Those who are anti-LGBT have provided good proof from Quran alone, that God is against homosexual acts,
while the pro-LGBT members haven't provided with one single solid proof from Quran alone, have distorted the verses to fit their desires (whether it be to fit their worldview or to please the rejecters to give Islam a good "image".), and have thousands of their own interpretations while they can't come to one conclusion.
I might have missed it but I did not see your opinion for the 2 verses.
Imran tried with A=B and B=A, Adem tried with ridiculing, but I did not see yours. -
Who do you think you're kidding here ?!
I see, it seems you already have your own kind of drugs, those drugs that brings you in a state to insult a innocent women only because you have nothing to bring in to her arguments. That's very muscle of you, much respect man!But the fact remains that you have nothing to bring in to her argument.
This
- You, don't marry FM polytheist ..... even if she pleases you
- You, don't marry M polytheist.... even if he pleases you
is not a valid argument !
If you can't figure out why on your own, then I'm afraid this discussion is over.
-
This
is not a valid argument. If you can't figure out why on your own, then I'm afraid this discussion is over.Like I said you have absolutely nothing to say except dodging and trying to stir the discussion in a direction where you can post nice white cats with moustaches who speak french.
-
Why not just say "Don't marry the polytheists, even if they please you" ?
The Author of the Quran does not waste space, mind ye.
Dichotomy (binary opposition) is a universal law decreed by ALLH Almighty.
Biologically, mentally and sexually, male and female go in pairs, and produce fruits.Gender Binary is blessed.
Completing each-other, since time immemorial. The law ye wish to break
is both rational and natural/healthy. Then add scriptural, to seal the deal. -
And all your steretypes of course without a single quote from Qur'an, but on the other hand GIVING a good show of the Iblees type refusing to postrate to God if you do not in turn get someoene, to wit, the other sex, in exchange to postrate to you.
quotes regarding what , homosex or quote about women and men ?
if you are looking for homosex quotes this thread is filled with all of my quotes and reasonings which is unable to answer by any supporter of this act... on the other hand if you want quotes regarding male/female propoganda open a new thread i will fill that thread too ... hope so ..
-
Last time I checked, my manners are better than yours.
Like seriously, all you ever do is cry ad hominem attacks yuck
Reported me for what, huruf ?! Presenting quranic evidence against homosexuality ?
What a loser ! laugh
rotfl rotfl now she is looking for a quranic quote that man are stronger than women thats why two witness of women =one man witness .. send her a quote or send her a quote that man responisbily on his family as a leader... send that quote too....
and about homosexulty you already send the quote which is not answer by anyone yet apart from screaming like a loser... that what clearly show someone defeat when they start screaming or giving up on anything...
you was right
truth is like lion , it proves itself... bravo -
Imran tried with A=B and B=A, Adem tried with ridiculing, but I did not see yours.
you already make your mood not to have a discussion with me otherwise i had lot of things to do...
lion rape a tree rotfl rotfl rotfl rotfl
wll he dnt need to rape a tree , if you said he sex with a tree that was something different ....
on the other hand males vs females ...
beleivers vs rejectors
A vs B
is not hard to understand in case there is no third catagory...you did not understand becoz this is against your claim ... its not our fault ...
when original verses i posted , in which you really had chance to prove your said claim u also failed to carry on discussion i think when a player of chess have no more moves he better try to do a stalmate draw what you try to do it here... but a author of quran seems to make checkmate here to anyboody who is claiming homosex with the lens of quran...
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609009.msg399199#msg399199
-
@ all the supporters of homosex...
just imagine you all are in the town of lot and you are going against lot... will you all deserve the punishement ...?
i just dnt wanted to go on that extreme but its best reason through which i think i hopefully make them understand.. think about my question take your time and then reply me...
NOTE (before giving the reply on bold part think twice)
-
i think its the skeleton of one of the victim of nation lut homosexual hmm
this poor boy was just looking to the gang bang of homos suddenly the fiery rain change the situation and make the town upside down...
wow You should be ashamed.
What a loser ! laugh
Show some respect if you can.
It's very clear God is against homosexual acts including relationships.
So far nothing explicit has been provided to support your claim! nope
I am still waiting for someone to prove
via Quran that there are to be no homosexual relations!brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall
-
So far nothing explicit has been provided to support your claim! nope I am still waiting for someone to prove via Quran that there are to be no homosexual relations! brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall
Your problem is obvious laugh
https//s18.postimg.org/b7mt6iw0p/fm_homo.png
Source FM
-
The sectarian interpretation of Quran is against homosexual relations. Even I can tell that. Either that or Lut has an opinion in contrast to the god in it although it would be strange that the god does print it out if it was not something noteworthy.
So those who look to validate homosexuality need to look somewhere beyond the sectarian interpretation of Quran. You cannot force your interpretation (opinion) into the sectarian interpretation of Quran, you would have to first reevaluate what the whole scripture says.
Yes, the hostile stance towards homosexuality goes against your own logic, but you yet deny to yourselves that there is any problem with the Quran you adhere to seeing the very interpretation and translation does portray homosexual relations in preference to heterosexual in a bad light. And there it does not matter whatever the people of Lut did beyond the other moral transgressions.
Be well
Amenuel -
wow You should be ashamed.
Show some respect if you can.
So far nothing explicit has been provided to support your claim! nope
I am still waiting for someone to prove
via Quran that there are to be no homosexual relations!brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall
I would type again the proof from Quran, but I think I have done it 4-5 times. So yes, something extremely explicit has been provided to support "my claim".
Take a moment, and actually read what I posted previously. If you don't understand I can help, and if you object, then bring your proof.Salam
-
wow You should be ashamed.
becoz i m against homosex police
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
My attempts to clarify are in red. My previous posts are in purple.
Four points for Abdul Hadi
- Please clarify
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.
If Prophets are addressed when they are wrong, because the Prophet Lot was not addressed when he said the people committed an immorality such as none of the worlds have ever done before, we can take his statement at face value. Sodom and Gomorrah (the towns of the people of Lot) were destroyed somewhere between 2067-1953 BCE. Homosexuality existed in organized society in Mesopotamia since at least 3000 BCE--around a thousand years before the destruction of the people of Lot. In less organized groups, homosexual acts occurred over 12,000 years ago. This is found in existing archaeological evidence. It follows that if Lot was correct, based on the existing archaeological evidence the immorality that he was addressing could not be homosexual acts.
- Please clarify
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.
You had stated that one cannot link an unrelated pattern. The people of Lot are unique and linking them (and what the Prophet Lot said to them) to any other people is linking an unrelated pattern.
- I intentionally used the word 'refuted' as the inclusion of males to "what is beyond that" cannot be linguistically proven. It would stand as a major rhetorical anomaly if we were to expand the scope of the verse to include males.
Cannot be linguistically proved is not ~quite~ the same as concretely disproved. How can a major anomaly disprove, when major anomalies exist within creation? Without discounting the major rhetorical anomaly, the inclusion or exclusion remains neither proven nor disproven.
- The retribution incurred by L's people was as a direct consequence of their enticing his guests. The fact that his wife was also punished is unrelated to this particular event. I should also point out that the marital status of those who enticed L's guests is unknown. As such, we cannot rule out?linguistically?the possibility of their being blinded purely on account of their homosexual tendencies.
The possibility exists. I was referring to the following ayat, where the people of Lot were destroyed. If the guests of Lot were women would the behavior of the people have been acceptable then? hmm
424 states ?beyond this category? in the same way that anything larger than a specified measurement is beyond a distance. If the specified measurement is one mile, then two miles is beyond this distance. Two million miles is beyond this distance. Two million light years is also beyond this distance. Way beyond is still beyond.
If one accepts the Prophet Lot's statement at face value, it flies in the face of physical evidence if he was talking about homosexual acts; in other words, he wasn't about homosexual acts. If one doesn't accept the Prophet Lot's statement at face value, then it is unclear what exactly/specifically he was condemning.
If one cannot link unrelated patterns, then what the Prophet Lot said to his people applied only to those people--it has no basis for other humans in other societies or times. If, on the other hand, one can link unrelated patterns, then homosexual relationships are clearly beyond the restrictions mentioned and thusly allowed.
http//www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenham.html
Excerpt From iconographic evidence dating from 3000 BC to the Christian era it is clear that homosexual practice was an accepted part of the Mesopotamian scene. This conclusion is confirmed by many literary and legal texts in which homosexual activity is mentioned.
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
- Please clarify
-
In its original tongue, homosexuality is a definite no no in the Quran whether your broken moral compass likes it or not
Lot's argument -against homophiles- alone kicks butt.
The human is not designed for homosexual copulation, but it does not hurt someone else whether a person does engage in such unless it is forced upon them.
Homosexuality is not a crime or anything in particular, but it is a personal failure in engaging with something which is not productive. However thinking about the same, it is failure to have sex without doing it for reproduction purposes in a heterosexual relationship too, so the anatomical differences is just about such misfit.
Why someone is homosexual is caused because of something your sectarian interpretation of Quran overlooks. It signifies a strong attachment to the bodily in conjunction with a past body of the opposite sex which had a strong impact on the soul of this person.
A wise person who happens to be homosexual would have to learn to refrain from the vain bodily interaction at all.
But for the rest of us who are not homosexually inclined should just let these people be and they are not more lost than most other people. If you look to convince them you got a lot more to convince than being upset about those souls.
Pure homosexuality is also not inclined to spread because some people are accepted to publicly display their gender preference because if one has a body functioning according to its hormones it would naturally be aroused by the opposite sex due to its features. The homosexual preference will not change during a person's lifetime as you cannot change the body in which you are.
There is in common society today "professionals" who argue gender roles are learned by the environment rather than their physical body and its hormones and those people are equally lost in their minds as someone who accepts their homosexuality.
Homosexuality is a test to overcome, but you or anyone else is not allowed to beat down on those people or otherwise you are showing your weak spiritual development yourselves.
I am not approving of homosexuality at all, but I am not a bully and I respect people born with an inherent problem. There are many homosexuals who have a lot of mental problems due to their gender identity and they honestly wish they were not like that. There are people calling themselves honest Muslims who call out saying they recognize themselves as homosexual. Will you unrighteously freeze those people out because of their confession of a condition they would not like themselves?
The root of the problem is not arousal to the same gender but vain sexual relations. The soul is asexual and it does not have a sex and you are therefore neither male or female in your spirit but the imprint on your being can make a conflicting gender identity to arise. Normally the gender identity is given by the actual sex of your current body.
Be well
Amenuel -
And one thing I wished to convey was is it is equally wrong to gain a strong gender identity matching the one of your body as it is to have a mismatching one. It would not matter much. If you accept your beastly impulses you are not better than the other one.
My suggestion is that you focus on improving yourself than whining about the problems of others and how immoral it is.
In it raising your emotions and you become angered in yourself due to them being homosexual you have "sinned" more than they are doing. You seeking to defeat them is just according to your instinct. Your entire reaction smells of instinctive behavior.
Their homosexual relations goes under the directive not to engage in illicit sex, but how many of those directives are you not breaking on a daily basis?
Your aggression towards those sinners is equally sinful and you do nothing to help them. Perhaps you would treat them poorly because of that. I have a feeling you would not treat them as yourself and therefore you would even break two of "God's" directives so far in our discussion here. It means you are more sinful than them who break one directive and that in your bullying.
Please think about things before you act. Use your brain.
Be well
Amenuel -
The human is not designed for homosexual copulation,
BUT IT DOES NOT HURT someone else whether a person does ENGAGE IN SUCH
unless it is forced upon them. Homosexuality is NOT A CRIME or anything in particular ....I don't think that sanity gives a duck what conjecture has to say
The Quran explicitly disgraces sexual perversion; and that's what matters here.
If you have faith that such a sodomy-based praxis is not a punishable misconduct, then go ahead and practice what you preach.
-
when original verses i posted , in which you really had chance to prove your said claim u also failed to carry on discussion i think when a player of chess have no more moves he better try to do a stalmate draw what you try to do it here... but a author of quran seems to make checkmate here to anyboody who is claiming homosex with the lens of quran...
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609009.msg399199#msg399199
Do you mean that "26165 Of all the creatures in the worlds, you approach males." is an original verse?
If so than you have a good point, even approaching animals would be no problem as long as they are female animals.But I would also have a very good point with this translation
5320 What! for you the male sex, and for Him, the female?I really like to discuss quran verses but not with somebody who thinks he is playing a game of chess and certainly not with somebody who does not even know the rules of the game.
FYI when a chessplayer does not have any legal moves left then he/she is not trying to get stalemated but he/she already is (or mated).screaming like a loser... that what clearly show someone defeat when they start screaming or giving up on anything...
you've lost your dignity, pathetic yuck
-
Homosexuality is defined as attraction to the same sex. It doesn't matter if the attraction is acted upon or not.
ALL known species that are capable of sexual reproduction also engage in homosexuality. This includes gnats and mosquitoes as well as larger and more complex animals.
2256 There is no compulsion in the system; the proper way has been clarified from the wrong way. Whoever rejects evil, and believes in GOD, indeed he has taken grasp of the strongest hold that will never break. GOD is Hearer, Knower.
I don't know if you're homosexual or you have some other reasons, but I thought that this topic is clear.
Anyways, I won't reply to all what you wrote, just a few things I saw, when I started to read your post. And I don't have time to read 30 pages, so I won't argue with others either. But, hear what I'll tell about quoted...- We cannot use definitions outside the Qur'an and then come to the Qur'an for answers about them. For example, if some scientist define something as "black hole", we cannot expect to find his definition in the Qur'an, because
a) he has to use haqq (reality) in his definition
b) his definition has to include all about defined
c) his definition has to connect all of the haqq about it
d) his definition has to be haqq as whole - We cannot follow rules for animals, otherwise ahadith like one according to which is allowed to people to follow behaviour of monkeys about stonning adulter. The other question is if this "scientific claim" is real (haqq).
- There is no word "compulsion" in that ayet. And about "deen" is this...
The People of Loot a.s. had their own deen, which was different from Loot's deen. Proof for this is in ayet 1567 where the word "El-Medina", as in all other ayets, means "time and place of deen". This is also a proof that his people was in several places (ie. towns, cities), if we wanna think.
The other, very important thing, is that all of this was about males from Loot's people (qawm is used for males only, and another proof is "Loot's brothers" in 5013). The question is why his wife was punished?
Allah swt is sending punishment only on those who're rejecting (kefere) His deen and accepting/making and following some other deen.
- We cannot use definitions outside the Qur'an and then come to the Qur'an for answers about them. For example, if some scientist define something as "black hole", we cannot expect to find his definition in the Qur'an, because