Homosexuality LGBTQI and the deen
-
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.
-
peace all,
Forum members should note Mist's behaviour.
He was asked to provide evidence for his claim. He was unable to. He then proceeded to make light of the situation, divert attention from his baseless claim and say things about me I never said/did (note the logical fallacies). And I'm not sure which is worse, him seemingly being unaware of a very simple aspect of logical discussion (the burden of proof is upon the claimant) or his hypocrisy
What you're doing is enforcing your own views into the Qur'an and trying to call it facts when it's not.
Mist,
If you wish to read about the topic you bring up there has been past discussions on it in the forum. For example here - you will note his argument was riddled with problems, most of which he didn't realise thus attempted to address as time went on.I'm not interested in discussing with a person who makes baseless claims and logical fallacies, sorry. Peace out.
-
peace all,
Forum members should note Mist's behaviour.
He was asked to provide evidence for his claim. He was unable to. He then proceeded to make light of the situation, divert attention from his baseless claim and say things about me I never said/did (note the logical fallacies). And I'm not sure which is worse, him seemingly being unaware of a very simple aspect of logical discussion (the burden of proof is upon the claimant) or his hypocrisy
Mist,
If you wish to read about the topic you bring up there has been past discussions on it in the forum. For example here - you will note his argument was riddled with problems, most of which he didn't realise thus attempted to address as time went on.I'm not interested in discussing with a person who makes baseless claims and logical fallacies, sorry. Peace out.
My behaviour is fine, thank you very much.
I've provided my evidence, it just didn't satisfy you specifically. You don't speak for everyone, be sure to remember that.
Assuming that I haven't read it now? I've read that discussion and I remember you stating that the view for sex before marriage is "laughable". Here.
If it was laughable, there would be a verse that would forbid it. Also, I have noted his argument and it isn't riddled with problems. Again, assumptions.You still can't provide a verse that forbids sex before marriage. )
Your view is that Zina means Adultery and Fornication.
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!
Logical evidence, I must say. On the translation you read from, it must translate Zina as Adultery and Fornication. Mm, unusual.
-
Easy steps for me to look at
1- Define marriage is it "Nikah" in Arabic?2- Define "Tamassuhunna" is it touching women sexually?
3-3349 says "Idha Nakahtum" (When you marry)... Min kabli an Tamassuhunna...( Before you touch them)...
i.e Marriage comes before "Tamassuhunna".Are you allowed "Tamassuhunna " before marriage?
Let us carry on
4- 425..."Bidhni Ahlihinna"(With permission from their folk-Family_....
So you ask permission from the family to have sex before marriage?Are people saying it is OK to have sex before marriage according to Qoran?i.e Qoran is OK about it?
Are people saying "Marriage" as an institution is not for them,but they prefer to just commit to a girlfriend/boyfriend (Make an oath to stay with them loyally-Similar to marriage) and they have sex with them ?
Or are people saying it is OK to keep trying girlfriends/boyfriends including sleeping with them to see if they are compatible?
Or are people saying just go out with girlfriends/boyfriends and have sex with them?
I think Qoran is clear to only have sex with a spouse/s or someone you are committed to by oath.Let us leave Qoran for a minute and look at this argument
So sex with a girlfriend/boyfriend before marriage is allowed? Then these questions will arise
1-At what age would you start having girlfriend /boyfriend?
2- Are you living with parents/guardians?
3-Why bother with marriage and seeking permissions and staying with one partner?
4-What prevents people from getting as many girlfriends /boyfriends when married?
5- What is the use of any rule that prevents diseases and social oppression(rapes..etc)?
6- Would you allow your daughters/sisters/sons/brothers to have sex with people they meet ?
7-What prevents people taking advantage of others especially men since women have consequences of getting pregnant?
Of course there are many other disadvantages and questions to be asked.Ya,,Qoran leaves the freedom to choose and people are free to do as they please. However Qoran instructs us to "Ihfadu Furujakum".
GOD bless.
Peace. -
Why is that some Musilms are so desperate to get rid of all prohibitions and duties from the Qur'an? Why would we be here if were allowed to do anything we want?
