Homosexuality LGBTQI and the deen
-
You're right, up to a certain degree. However, do not forget God has commanded for there to be a community enjoying on the people what is right and forbidding what is wrong.
Also this subject is not one with any ambiguity. The verses are as clear as water. Homosexuality is an abomination with a punishment prescribed.Are you saying that the believers should remain silent while one individual commands unrighteousness and immorality among the people.
Remaining silent is worse.
We shouldn't dispute with each other about verses except what is clear and this again is direct and straightforward.
There are several examples from Lut's people with clear language emphasizing on the wrongdoing they had done and there is a punishment prescribed for homosexual acts in another Surah.
This cannot be debated nor ignored and remaining silent to it, is also wrong.
The issue is that these arguing against logic and truth are probably not even homosexuals, however they have been indoctrinated and swayed into this false sense of progression, modernity, acceptance which is provided by western culture.
Which is that aya you say where a punishmet is set for homosexual acts, please quote it and give its number.
Salaam
-
Also it is to be asked if what the people of Lut did or try to do with males they uesued it with females, would it have been right?
Also prove that shahwa is eclusively lust and not plain desiring or coveting. Shahwa in Qur'an i not used articularly for lust, but for desire, not lustful but plain desire.
Salaam
-
Also it is to be asked if what the people of Lut did or try to do with males they uesued it with females, would it have been right?
Also prove that shahwa is eclusively lust and not plain desiring or coveting. Shahwa in Qur'an i not used articularly for lust, but for desire, not lustful but plain desire.
Salaam
Really Huruf? How long have you been reading Quran?
The first primary obvious punishment for overt homosexuality was stones of clay actually.
Now we submit to as it is instructed for us to do in 415-16
-
Really Huruf? How long have you been reading Quran?
It looks as if far, far,far longer than you?
The first primary obvious punishment for overt homosexuality was stones of clay actually.
Now we submit to as it is instructed for us to do in 415-16
Some peole who are not Qura'n alone seem tothink that 4.15 seaks about lesbians but the Qur'an does not say such a thing.
So where do you get it from? Not fromQur'an obviously.Annd where is the punishment?. It says put the women in the houses, not unish them, and kee them up till they find another means of livelihood or till they die.
And then in 4.16, about a couple, either a male and a female or may be two males, but a couple, what is the punishment? No punishment stated.
Where is the punishment? Nowhere. Whatever those two are doing, there is no punishement, reconvening them or anoying them is no punishment.As to the stoning where did you get that from? Not from the Qur'an urely, but now if after defending somuch the Qur'an you find that geting outside them is some imrovement, I will have to believe that what is more important for you is not to uhold the Qur'an but to uhold whatever looks to you more militant in your (not the Qur'an's) line of thought.
And what about anwering many of the questions and remarks I have put forward inmy revious mesages.
The thing with seuality is that on both ends nobody wants to really get down to get at the teachings of the Qur'a. Either they milk from it whatever suits their prejudices, either they just could not care less. They already have what they want, they do not want to find anything out.
I doubt very much of the seriousness of many Qur'an aloners.
Salaam
-
Peace huruf,
Listen I am willing to have a constructive discussion with you but you really have to stop ranting.
As to the stoning where did you get that from? Not from the Qur'an urely, but now if after defending somuch the Qur'an you find that geting outside them is some imrovement, I will have to believe that what is more important for you is not to uhold the Qur'an but to uhold whatever looks to you more militant in your (not the Qur'an's) line of thought.
Who are you referring to here? I know you ain't talking to me. I never mentioned stoning nor do I think it is prescribed. Your entire personal attack is developed from false assumptions if it is addressed to me sister.
You have to bring facts. Meaning, bring verses from the Quran which you claimed I am deviating from and support your extremely contradictory premises, each and every single one of them.
The burden of proof falls on you.
That is why Abdul-Hadi is trying so hard he knows the burden of proof falls on the ones making such grandiose absurd claims.One more thing...
I have come to like you as a person but I do not want to hear your sermon every time you disagree with someone.
Get to the core of the matter without bringing sentiments and emotions, remain constructive and we will tread well, other than that I will eventually grow tired of it. We all have our limits come on.
Every time you smell a whiff against what you perceive as your core ideals and principles (feminism, women rights) its the end of the world and everyone is your enemy, and we are sexist, bigots etc... This attitude is not good at all. It has made you say some horrible things recently. So please, try to improve on these aspects. That is all part of the deen right? Well then...Let us give it another try sister.
Let us truly humbly seek God's guidance in this matter without biases. Let us agree that whatever Allah has ordained is best
Let us finally analyze these verses without prejudices as best we can regardless of our positions
PLEASE READ EACH VERSE CAREFULLY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SYNTAX AND MORPHOLOGY
(4151)
wa-allt
And those who CONJ ? prefixed conjunction wa (and)
REL ? feminine plural relative pronoun(4152)
yatna
commit V ? 3rd person feminine plural imperfect verb
PRON ? subject pronoun(4153)
l-fishata
immorality N ? accusative feminine noun(4154)
min
from P ? preposition(4155)
nisikum
your women N ? genitive feminine plural noun
PRON ? 2nd person masculine plural possessive pronoun(4156)
fa-is'tashhid
then call to witness SUP ? prefixed supplemental particle
V ? 2nd person masculine plural (form X) imperative verb
PRON ? subject pronoun(4157)
alayhinna
against them P ? preposition
PRON ? 3rd person feminine plural object pronoun(415
arbaatan
four N ? accusative feminine indefinite noun(4159)
minkum
among you. P ? preposition
PRON ? 2nd person masculine plural object pronoun(41510)
fa-in
And if REM ? prefixed resumption particle
COND ? conditional particle(41511)
shahid
they testify V ? 3rd person masculine plural perfect verb
PRON ? subject pronoun(41512)
fa-amsikhunna
then confine them RSLT ? prefixed result particle
V ? 2nd person masculine plural (form IV) imperative verb
PRON ? subject pronoun
PRON ? 3rd person feminine plural object pronoun??
(41513)
f
in P ? preposition(41514)
l-buyti
their houses N ? genitive masculine plural noun(41515)
att
until P ? preposition(41516)
yatawaffhunna
comes to them V ? 3rd person masculine singular (form V) imperfect verb, subjunctive mood
PRON ? 3rd person feminine plural object pronoun
??
(41517)
l-mawtu
death N ? nominative masculine noun(4151
aw
or CONJ ? coordinating conjunction(41519)
yajala
makes V ? 3rd person masculine singular imperfect verb, subjunctive mood(41520)
l-lahu
Allah PN ? nominative proper noun Allah(41521)
lahunna
for them P ? prefixed preposition lm
PRON ? 3rd person feminine plural personal pronoun(41522)
sablan
a way. N ? accusative masculine indefinite noun(4161)
wa-alladhni
And the two who CONJ ? prefixed conjunction wa (and)
REL ? masculine dual relative pronoun(4162)
yatiynih
commit it V ? 3rd person masculine dual imperfect verb
PRON ? subject pronoun
PRON ? 3rd person feminine singular object pronoun
??
(4163)
minkum
among you, P ? preposition
PRON ? 2nd person masculine plural object pronoun(4164)
fadhhum
then punish both of them. REM ? prefixed resumption particle
V ? 2nd person masculine plural (form IV) imperative verb
PRON ? subject pronoun
PRON ? 3rd person dual object pronoun(4165)
fa-in
But if REM ? prefixed resumption particle
COND ? conditional particle(4166)
tb
they repent V ? 3rd person masculine dual perfect verb
PRON ? subject pronoun(4167)
wa-ala
and correct themselves, CONJ ? prefixed conjunction wa (and)
V ? 3rd person masculine dual (form IV) perfect verb
PRON ? subject pronoun(416
fa-ari
then turn away RSLT ? prefixed result particle
V ? 2nd person masculine plural (form IV) imperative verb
PRON ? subject pronoun(4169)
anhum
from both of them. P ? preposition
PRON ? 3rd person dual object pronoun(41610)
inna
Indeed, ACC ? accusative particle(41611)
l-laha
Allah PN ? accusative proper noun Allah(41612)
kna
is V ? 3rd person masculine singular perfect verb(41613)
tawwban
Oft-Forgiving, N ? accusative masculine singular indefinite active participle(41614)
raman
Most-Merciful. ADJ ? accusative masculine singular indefinite adjectiveNow then you said
Some peole who are not Qura'n alone seem tothink that 4.15 seaks about lesbians but the Qur'an does not say such a thing.
So where do you get it from? Not fromQur'an obviously.415 is speaking about women committing the immorality. If it were not for knowledge and use of context any fool would be convinced that these verses are not speaking about homosexual acts. However, fortunately I am able to apply both. And when I do it is clear that it is. The reason is because the punishment for mere fornication is prescribed in Surah 24 in perfect detail and the punishment prescribed there is a public lashing, provided there are witnesses to the act of course.
If you disagree with the evidence, that this is a completely different form of immorality than fornication then you are basically claiming there are two different punishments prescribed for fornication/shameful deeds. Then the question would arise why two different punishments, which bring in an element of contradiction which Quran is bereft of. Occam's razor. Do not multiply your entities needlessly. Your interpretation is then fallacious.In the least we know of course this is a different kind of violation which warrants a different kind of chastisement.
Do you see how the context I keep stressing about is crucial?
So yeah this straight from the Quran.
Ok so next you say
Annd where is the punishment?. It says put the women in the houses, not unish them, and kee them up till they find another means of livelihood or till they die.
That doesn't sound like a chastisement to you? So confinement is not a punishment? Ah okay...
Seriously? I know you yourself don't believe what you're saying!
I am in no shape or form going to argue with you whether confinement is punishment.
It is, and everybody knows that. It might not be a severe punishment, nor a physical punishment but it is castigation nonetheless.And then in 4.16, about a couple, either a male and a female or may be two males, but a couple, what is the punishment? No punishment stated.
Where is the punishment? Nowhere. Whatever those two are doing, there is no punishment, reconvening them or anoying them is no punishment.Stop it. The verses are in bold green. Now you can no longer half-ass it ok. No. It is not just a mere couple male and female.
It is dual masculine form. DUAL MASCULINE FORM. Repeat after me.
No punishment?
So read the verses again if there is no punishment, then you are claiming that there is no wrong doing.
Are you actually claiming there is no wrong doing? If that's the case I can pack my bags and leave.
Have you become a liar? If so, I will cease regarding you as I have.What is the point of repenting and correcting themselves if there is no wrong doing?
(4165)
fa-in
But if REM ? prefixed resumption particle
COND ? conditional particle(4166)
tb
they repent V ? 3rd person masculine dual perfect verb
PRON ? subject pronoun(4167)
wa-ala
and correct themselves, CONJ ? prefixed conjunction wa (and)
V ? 3rd person masculine dual (form IV) perfect verb
PRON ? subject pronounYour premise is yet again fallacious. Meaning that there is indeed a violation for which the violators can repent for and correct themselves.
It follows then that the verb
(4164)
fadhhum
then ____ both of them. REM ? prefixed resumption particleHowever you want to interpret it, that is a clear action that the believers are commanded to take in regards to these violators.
In my personal opinion it isn't execution as some clown earlier tried to insinuate but there is some definite reprimanding necessary.
If you follow a logic calm reasoning train of thought while reading you will notice that verse 415 cites
l-fishata
immorality N ? accusative feminine nounAnd following the chastisement of confinement for the women 416 begins with
(4161)
wa-alladhni
And the two who CONJ ? prefixed conjunction wa (and)
REL ? masculine dual relative pronoun(4162)
yatiynih
commit IT V ? 3rd person masculine dual imperfect verb
PRON ? subject pronoun
PRON ? 3rd person feminine singular object pronounWhat is it in this context?
Yes l-fishata the feminine accusative noun used in the previous verse.Which means that the same al-fahishata that the men would be committing is the same as the aforementioned, the women.
I believe literally ALL your premises and claims have been utterly destroyed by the light of the Quran and from now on hold your emotional rants to yourself and be more humble, objective and let go of these biases that are leading you to evil interpretations which have 0 support from the TRUTH in Quran.
And yes I am militant, that is my nature.
Every nation needs soldiers and hosts. Allah says His are the hosts of the heavens and the hosts of the earth. I would like to believe it is every capable believers duty to be ready to march.
That is what would be required of us if perhaps we were in different times.
However these times are a bit different and although I do not have a strong arm to carry a heavy sword,
I have good internet speed and fast typing fingers.
I am a militant soldier junidin
484 487The reason I have overcome is because what drives me is Faith and what drove you to those conclusions was merely arrogance
-
If it were not for knowledge and use of context any fool would be convinced that these verses are not speaking about homosexual acts. However, fortunately I am able to apply both. And when I do it is clear that it is. The reason is because the punishment for mere fornication is prescribed in Surah 24 in perfect detail and the punishment prescribed there is a public lashing, provided there are witnesses to the act of course.
Calling huruf a fool indirectly, round of applause to this so called believer.
You're the one who misinterpreted the "punishment" in chapter 24. There is no punishment, it's your culture that advocates such thing. You speak of fornication, when it suits you.. but let's not forget if the subject was of marriage, you would insert adultery into the mix. Fornication and adultery will never be under the same arabic word, they are 2 different aspects. Name one verse where it says "O you who believe, do not have sex before marriage". Thought so. You're the delusional individual here.
Huruf is speaking with logic, you're not.
-
HP_TECH you are speaking out of your own prejudices.
For one, you try to force on me our own thoughts. To you, as to many fanatics on this question, the only thing you care about is that anybody who speaks says outright "it is wrong" or "it is right", and if it hapens that a person does not say those magic words, you put them in their mouth for them. What for do you do that? Is it so imortant for you that anybody speaks those magic words? and can't you just simply take in that have not said what you wanted them to say?
Well guess what, I am not going to say this is wrong or this is right, exactly because that is the escaping route of people like you who are not interested in knowing and getting to something useful but in dividing people between kosher and not kosher.
I am not going to do that, not because of political correctness like many fools attibute when they cannot come up with reason and logic, but because I am not going to please any side, because I shit on their political correctness and on their accusations of political correctness.
I am not here either to pander to anybody's feelings of having the absolute truth.
You, for one, do not have it.
Qur'an is clear when it settles some question or orders something. In 4.15 it is not speaking particularly about lesbians, though it could if the context fitted but it does not. It is speaking only about women, in plural.
Some member in the forum, some years ago, was really a genius, because while all along many great "Muslims", including qur'an aloners kept harping on lesbianism regarding aya 4.15, he saw the obvious it fits prostitutes like a glove, a collective, in plural, of vulnerable women who in most places and most of the time do their trade in the streets. The aya says "put them in the houses" and that is not a punishment, but a rescue. Yes, HP, Yes, there are for you those women who may have had children out of rape, and when they have them and have to care for them and feed them, they find themelves doing the street, who are let them fence for themselves and their children.
Till the widespreading of drugs, most prostitutes were women seduced or raped who found temselves with children and that was the only trade they could do. The Qur'an which is formulated by the God who cares for women and children orders that if they are doing the street (and they must by doing that since it says) to put them in the houses, not in prison, but in the houses, not in the streets but in the houses.
Who is so obtuse in having such a penchant for unishment that would impose for the same "crime" from the perpetual to half a minute as would have to be deduced from the wording of 4.15 if we were to take it as a unishment? Wht kind of legal language oor of clarity is that?
Believe what you want HP but the fact that you see a punishment when none is seen or meant, says worlds about you but not about the Qur'an. Of course you are not the only one, not by far, you are one of legions. If there is any political correcteness it is of those who keep in their "traditional" "muslim" comfort, in that imaginary world where the Qur'an aplies, where there has never been prostitution nor there are clients who hook up with the prostitute in the street, like in 4.16, nor anything like that, just unnamed lesbianism of plural women and homosexuality of two males, in the street, where all people can see themand annoy them as a legal punishment.
That is ridiculing te Qur'an. Setting it out of the real world and turning it into a circus, a disguise wardrobe, where you can find anything you fancy.
The Qur'an does not set a punishment for "homosexuality". The Qur'an does not want people spying and invading the intimacy of anybody. And if there is anything in the street, the Qur'an states the means to do away with it, not with punishment but with social conscience, help for the unfortunates.
And in spite of all your shock about male "hmosexuality", fancy that, you are satisfied to see women condemned to perpetual, while at the same time you seemingly say that men, are only punished with rebuking them in the streets. ?How fair!
Also, all those ayas in sura The women revolve about social harmony and solidarity, about welfare, no about punishments. To come up with that in those passages is forcing into them the meaning to convenience, whereas the deal with carrying on with the Conforming of a society that reflects the real marks of a God trusting society, solidarity and rahma. As court proceedings those two ayas are senseless, no penal punishment is formulated like that neither in the Qur'an nor anywhere else.
Who is being politically correct? Who is making of the Qur'an a senseless toy which if you turn it around appropriately will tell whatever suits you?
The fact is that I disagree with everybody in this question because simply right now I do not see any interest on the part of anybody in going on this question of human sexuality beyond the outward and mondane business of whether it is "normal" or "abnormal", which strictly means nothing, and nobody seems to care to find out everything about the matter without mental barriers. The ones behaving as if they possessed the truth and acting like judges with thunder and lightning and the other digging their feet on something they want to be inmovable and indisputable, as if questioning and digging in the matter was going to get us into some dungeon where life would end.
I have been a loner in this question and I guess will continue to be so all my life. Because peole want their comfort and not knowledge or understanding. They are too comfortable in their mental schemes and if you touch them they are unsettled. If the fanatics of their "truth" are given a shake, even of the slightest order, they quickly resort to calling all holy to their side, as if they had passed a contract with the holy when there is in fact nothing beyond their barrage of self-appointed possession of the truth.
The fact is and it is very clear, too clear for the comfort of so many, that in the Qur'an, we re all encouraged to be friends and helpers, women and men of each others, that we are very clearly and very insistently called to respect privacy and intimacy, not to spread or carry gossis and slandering, but apart from the Lut passages -if they do so, which should be examined calmly and without the threat of lightining and thunder to ascertain their content- God does not say a word about "homosexuality". Myself I do nto believe in "hmosexuality" or "heterotexuality" They are convenient labels for this age with which we are spared the trouble of digging into our souls and reality and go beyond labels and appearances. God does not seem to believe in labels either, because aside from Lut, it does not say a word.
And about Lut, I asked a question of you HP_. You have answered many quetions I did not ask, but that one and others, you have taken good care to sidestep.
"if what the people of Lut did or try to do with males they had done it to females, would it have been right?"
It is fundamental to answer that question if we are going to get anywhere with the help of Prophet Lut, peace be on him.
And another one
Prove that shahwa in the Qur'an is exclusively lust and not plain desiring or coveting.
Shahwa in Qur'an is not used particularly for lust except where it is attributed so -may be as so many times happens with the Qur'an, through biblical influence- precisely in Lut's passages, but outside of that it is not lust but plain intense wishing.
We will not get anywhere if we set our ow conclusions as facts, before examining fully to its last consequences the text itself.
But I guess we can fill up another few million of pages, harping about the same bla, bla, bla, on homosexuality, Lut (may God sare our millions of pages) and other toys and get full of oursevels with our self-righteousness, "purity" and so on.
Salaam
-
peace Mist, all,
I haven't read this thread but this caught my attention
Fornication and adultery will never be under the same arabic word, they are 2 different aspects.
Since you seem knowledgeable of Arabic, can you tell us what is the Arabic word for "fornication" and the Arabic word for "adultery"?
Thanks.
-
Some peole who are not Qura'n alone seem tothink that 4.15 seaks about lesbians but the Qur'an does not say such a thing.
So where do you get it from? Not fromQur'an obviously.I like how God showed in that verse that it is not just men, but women also are capable of making the decision to have "orgy". I see how it is kept so general.
Annd where is the punishment?. It says put the women in the houses, not unish them, and kee them up till they find another means of livelihood or till they die.
And then in 4.16, about a couple, either a male and a female or may be two males, but a couple, what is the punishment? No punishment stated.
Where is the punishment? Nowhere. Whatever those two are doing, there is no punishement, reconvening them or anoying them is no punishment.Isn't it strange that "punish" in verse 416 doesn't seem to flow well with 415?
Sorry for this off topic question.
Wow. I think that Islam and other religions have been traditionally opposed to sex outside of marriage between anything other than human men and human women but despite that, like in all things, I think the bottom line in Islam is that the Qur'an warns that people will face Judgment from God and that they can do whatever they want or think is best and then will personally face Judgment, reward, or punishment.
Many atheists are opposed to homosexuality. But umm, well, that one is a "belief" anyways. White supremacists also hate homosexuality. According to them, gay people are simply tool for depopulation.
-
peace Mist, all,
I haven't read this thread but this caught my attention
Since you seem knowledgeable of Arabic, can you tell us what is the Arabic word for "fornication" and the Arabic word for "adultery"?
Thanks.
Peace,
I'll play along with your suspicious remark.
If Fa-Ha-Shin meant fornication, that word would have been used at the start of Chapter 24, Verse 2. Only Zina is mentioned.Anything related to Adultery has to correspond with Chapter 24, Verse 2.
Zina can't apply to Adultery and Fornication, It's one or the other. That's like me saying MMK applies to both (oaths & slaves). Voila!
-
The problem is not in zina but in marriage. What is what the Qur'an coniders marriage. Is it papers, is it a legally witnessed pact?
What is the mithaq ghalidh of 4.21? a legal contract or rather a flesh alliance or commitment of selivery?I pointed out in oher messages that in acient Egypt there wasno such a thing as a wedding. Marriage wasnot contract or a legal act but the fact of marriage, that is the "de facto" marriage, common law marriage, I think is called in english. No wedding, no legal act, the fact of acting like married and having the flesh alliance.
That eemed not to give them any problems at all and in fact did away with many other problems other societies have had.
There existed divorce however, and there existed the offence of adultery. I guess that did away with the crime of fornication, because if one of the parties was unware of the other being married, there would be no fault on her or his part, but on the other party's it would be adultery. And if the party was aware that the other was married, that would also be adultery.
I tend to agree with zina being just one thing, provided we agree on the Qura'nic meaning of marriage as I understand it, more like the acient egyptians' de facto marriage,flesh marriage, than as a legal paper or legal act with witnesses. Obviously, of th real de facto marriage it wouldn't be advisable to have witnesses.
Salaam
-
peace,
If Fa-Ha-Shin meant fornication, that word would have been used at the start of Chapter 24, Verse 2. Only Zina is mentioned.
Anything related to Adultery has to correspond with Chapter 24, Verse 2.
Zina can't apply to Adultery and Fornication, It's one or the other. That's like me saying MMK applies to both (oaths & slaves). Voila!
Thanks for the reply but I didn't see two separate Arabic words in your post, so cant verify/check what you claimed.
-
You two have no substance in your arguments that's clear and evident so leave the discussion for the grownups. If you do not have intelligent arguments backed by concrete evidence remain silent and keep lurking as you have before
Hello, it's me.
Hello, can you hear me?
-
I was talking in general. Maybe no one here mentioned stoning to death of homosexuals, but such has been practiced since olden times around the world, killing homosexuals by various means. My posts are full of general commentary and food for thought for anyone interested. I don't know what the specific nuances of your posts are because I have not read them but based on what I have read I trust you have an opinion and like me are probably anti-homosexuality and anti-lewdness, but beyond that I have not read your posts enough to know what anyone here is really arguing or saying.
What I am saying is that we are probably safest speaking against wrong but leaving people mostly to their own devices until Judgment day except where it becomes a serious matter of self defense. It does not help us to create a thought police type system which ends up being used against us too. I am not suggesting you ever said or implied any such thing, I have just been making mostly general statements sometimes using things from your posts which might have stimulated a certain thought or idea or response.
You may not be promoting stoning or execution, but many people do, and I think those people who take lives are probably more dangerous to decent Muslims than anyone else.
I generally agree with your statement. I'm not anti-this or anti-that, I simply follow God's Word in the best of my abilities with a sound mind. Homosexuals are human beings and beyond their gross sin I see them as I do many other wrongdoers. I simply wish they would stop wronging themselves and corrupting their communities and the future generations.
However bear this in mind there are certain aspects of the deen that can only be applied to the believers and their community.
The concern that you are raising is not something the Quran advocates. The Quran is not advocating for Muslim to go into every other nation and punish those who commit immoralities with lashes or confinement. These measures are to be used within the community of believers.
This doesnt mean that someone should go to the West and punish sinners. It is a conduct required only within a community of believers.
In such community every conscious individual would be aware of the proper conduct and behavior and also well aware of the risks of violating God's limits. Hence, the reason for the punishment being public or severe.
Our duty is to warn others of their wrongdoing and in this case, such as in this debate, demonstrate to them thoroughly that they are wrong and direct them to the right way. Convey the message CLEARLY and let them decide.
I am merely in the process of conveying
-
I am serious about producing evidence for claims, and so are the forum rules.
It seems your claim is shrouded in Mist.
I'm yet to hear of your counterclaim.
You think my claim is against the Qur'an, yet you haven't produced a verse that forbids sex before marriage specifically. What you're doing is enforcing your own views into the Qur'an and trying to call it facts when it's not.Try again.
