Does Islam accept LGBTQ community as Legitimate?
-
Peace....
I emphasized the verse 26165-166 for Bikrun but she skipped in her final answer wittingky or unwittingly.... Her whole concern was 'Desire' but this verse is clear and no desire at all...BTW some good verses you brought above .. Only right minded will grasp... Sadly always ambiguity remains among believers.... .
Salam,
26165
Why atatuna means here approach? It never means something like this in the whole quran and suddenly here it means "approach sexualy?" Who says so?
Asuming it is about homosexuality, why it talks only about males approaching sexually males? Maybe because there is a preconceived idea.
Then next verse says "and u leave your mates". Still this verse could be talking about many many things and not necessary homosexuality. Maybe we should check on why this irrepressible need to relate everything to adultery or homosexuality and leave behind what is indeed a huge sin, and explicit.
In any case, I missed to talk about it on purpose because as i told u, i dont see any explicit prohibition and it is my choice to think so and it is yours to think the opposite.
God knows best
-
Taatuna el dhkraan min al 'alaamin. In other ayas regarding Lut it does not talk about dukraan but about rijaal. We should then take it that they are not synonims. "min al 'aalamin, may mean any male of any species, meaning not stopping at distinguishing a male from any other male nor putting a limit as to number. On the other hand if they were only human why not use rijaal, since previously it has been used as opposed to nisaa'.
Also the azwaj here, the partners or mates or peers, indeed it may mean any of those. In the Qur'an zawj, plural azwaj is also used for individuals of the sae standing, or condition not necessarily for spose or sexual mate. See
6.143, 11.40, 13.3, 15.88, 20.53, 22.5, 26.7, 31.10, 35.11, 36.36, 37.22, 38.58, 56.7, etc.etc.etc.The pro blem with the Lut passages is that muslims have imposed on Qur'an the short Biblical text that says without much going into it that they practised sodomie, and have not bothered to read attentively with real interest and without any prejudice what the Qur'an says in the different passages where it talks about those events.
I agree with Bikrun that the lens through which those differnet passages are read is already putting into them previous meanings.
And that is not the onlyc ase where the Qur'an is trampled on for th sake of upholding biblical tontent.
Salaam
-
Also the azwaj here, the partners or mates or peers, indeed it may mean any of those. In the Qur'an zawj, plural azwaj is also used for individuals of the sae standing, or condition not necessarily for spose or sexual mate. See
6.143, 11.40, 13.3, 15.88, 20.53, 22.5, 26.7, 31.10, 35.11, 36.36, 37.22, 38.58, 56.7, etc.etc.etc.Salaam
Peace
Yes mate can mean non sexual. It can mean pairs or to pair
http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=zwj#(61432)
But question is what God has created for us us of mates that we are allowed to have sexual relations as per 236?
3021 From His signs is that He created for you mates from yourselves that you may reside with them, and He placed between you affection and compassion. In that are signs for a people who reflect.
Now as per 3021 You may say male-male or female-female pairs can reside together and can have affection and compassion between them without reproducing. Homosexuality is not only physical desire but also feeling of love and compassion for the same sex partner.
Even with male-female partnership not always there are children.
4249 To God is the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. He creates whatever He wills. He bestows daughters to whoever He wills, and bestows sons to whoever He wills.
4250 Or, He may bestow them with both sons and daughters, and He makes whom He wills barren. He is Knowledgeable, Capable.And to have children sexual intercourse is not even required if someone prefers technology. However opposite sex is required.
But "What God created for you mates from yourselves?" The answer to this question is in other verses
41 O people, be aware of your Lord who has created you from one person and He created from it its mate and sent forth from it many men and many women; and be aware of God whom you ask about, and the relatives. God is Watcher over you.
7189 He is the One who has created you from one person, and He made from it its mate to reside with. When he dwelled with her, she became pregnant with a light load, and she continued with it; then when it became heavy, they called on God, their Lord "If You give us an upright child, then we will be among the thankful."
396 He created you from one person, then He made from it its mate. He sent down to you eight pairs of the livestock. He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, a creation after a creation in triple darkness. Such is God your Lord. To Him belongs the sovereignty. There is no god besides Him. How is it then you deviate?
God created one person and from it its mate so that reproduction can happen along with residing with. So God has created from ourselves opposite sex in the initial creation.
Now you may say that that was initial creation. But whenever God says what he created from yourselves of mates he is referring back to the initial creation of one female from one male. This is my understanding from these versed of Quran. God knows the best.
Peace
-
But "What God created for you mates from yourselves?" The answer to this question is in other verses
What is that you are quoting there and to which you seem to mean you are answering?
I really cannot see what you are getting at which might be an aswer to my post.
Salaam
-
Peace brothers and sisters....
Now the topic from LGBT to Lut community... Bikrun are you still debating? Coz now you brought a new concern leaving desire... APPROACH . that also confused? Why you add sexually when the word is only referring approaching /nearing...one example 2830..Insert any meaning of this word which suits to other appearances... No way you can change the word doesn't give the meaning of approaching or nearing while it get many other meaning... Sexually is not meant... The question is why they approached men leaving women for which Lut was furious...
Bikrun i am not addressing you but commonly from here onwards.... Since you officially withdrew from debate saying remaining in your opinion regardless what is debated... but I am here even to shift from my opinion if I find guidance here with clarity.. ...Dear believers... If Lut men not preferred men instead of women... For what they preferred in men? For which Lut could not control himself even to the extent of giving his daughters ...
Carefully read verses 1561-72.....
*Who actually came to Lut, was it women? No... Quran clear Men Messengers ..
*Why Lut worried seeing them since they were men that also different to his community and decent not the way of his own men?
*Why men came running hearing Lut's guests with full of rejoice....?what is in men for another men to rejoice. For that rejoice Lut against.. Why Lut against to some people's rejoice..
Why when the men rushed to Lut, then Lut begged not to shame and disgrace him... used two words (tafdhahuni..tukhzuni) It's not attack and harm them but disgrace and shame... What is it?
Why Lut said these my daughters if you are doers... (it's a big topic) but somehow Lut told this to those men just to save his guests.. ...
Read now 1178-79
Then why those men disliked the daughters of Lut... Saying "you know what we want"...what they want if not women... when Lut gave daughters saying as they are pure. .they refused said not their 'Haq'--right... So they have made their own rights... Like the LGBT claim now...
*Why Lut should ask "Isn't there any man among you? of course that suits for them... But they were men strong doing all robberies...not weak men... But Lut meant rightly...
Without Lut story I brought glaring evidences.. But debate is gone to the extreme so brought Lut story as well.
Those who claim lut men did something else not homosexuality .. Then, What is that something else while refusing Luts daughters..? -
God created one person and from it its mate so that reproduction can happen along with residing with. So God has created from ourselves opposite sex in the initial creation.
Now you may say that that was initial creation. But whenever God says what he created from yourselves of mates he is referring back to the initial creation of one female from one male. This is my understanding from these versed of Quran. God knows the best.
Peace
Salam, seekingtruth111
Thanks for you clear and wide exposition. I agree with most of it. Following your reasoningRed agreed. Obviously, we were created as a species sexual and viviparous.
Green there is a problem, at least for me, maybe for others, it is crystal clear. This verse (7189) does not say "child" anywhere, and does not say "male" and "female" anywhere, brother.
Salam jkhan,
If you are not addressing me, then stop addressing me. It leads to wrong interpretations.
If you did not take it personally then why
“Bikrun but she skipped in her final answer wittingky or unwittingly.... Her whole concern was 'Desire' but this verse is clear and no desire at all... “ (you brought the desire to the discussion as a proof that Lut’s people were homosexual)
“First of all, you have no debate here. “
“Now tell me.... If your lesbian sex is allowed and why not sex with a woman we like is not allowed even after she offers....question is.....”
“What's wrong with you people... Where is your logic?”
“I end with one thing... About desire and your confusion for years.. Desire is desire.. “
“Since you officially withdrew from debate saying remaining in your opinion regardless of what is debated”
And it is you who brought 26165 to the discussion yourself to prove it is sexual desire between men. I just told you I don't think so. So, legitimately, you gave me the impression you have something personal with my reasoning or homosexuality in general, thus I told you it is pointless to discuss.
You said in all your posts and explicitly addressing me that it is homosexuality and then saying “what is wrong with you”, therefore you don’t want to change your opinion and a conversation like this is pointless. Then the one who brings “approach” to prove homosexuality is you, and now you say you don’t by saying it is me the one saying it.
So you see how pointless all this is? Better go to a constructive discussion otherwise let’s withdrew from it so other brothers with better knowledge can bring some light. Can we move on?
-
Peace Sister Bikrun....
Please don’t spoil the debate…. People have freedom to choose…let’s make a platform for that with thorough debate with reasons and mainly within quran… That’s why I like Brother Waqas or Mazhar or GL or some yester year members completely…. They never get upset…. That’s how they have survived all these years with many people in debate and still has courage to pursue… patience key…
Better you follow what you stated below in a very early stage of your debate..… so I withdrew.. but you still bringing your opinion and claiming confusion…
“”””In any case, It is pointless and an unnecessary effort to try to change other's opinions when they are not willing to change it and they feel comfortable with their own, as it is your case and my case.
Indeed, I feel comfortable with my opinion and i have no intention to deconstruct it, neither to change yours. So let's not move into unnecessary exercises of imposition or insistence. Let's thank God we have a place like this to discuss and stop discussing whenever we want.”””
Your above statement is not always correct… don’t compare yourself with others… people change listening and reading when they get clarity..from what they were before without knowledge… they may change and they may not… that we don’t know…
In the name of God… I have no personal grudges with you…. Not with anyone in this forum personally… I beg for believers the guidance every morning… God knows it… I will prove it if I meet you on the day of resurrection…
As I explained many times in this forum’s threads on various topics, I don’t want to change anyone with my opinion and I can’t do that and I don’t have the interest or capacity to do that..…. But I will always in sha Allah give my understanding of Quran as others also giving their own understanding….. i will debate till I feel weak in the debate so I know my stance wrong… when I give my understanding of quran in my style if you feel I am trying to change opinion of others, then I can’t help…. It’s your whim..
Pls don’t develop from now onwards any bad feelings of me or anyone… let’s work together with our understanding of quran….. let the people who not participate in debate but reading get benefit by choosing what they feel right… Pls keep positive .. we debate here not to pass time or overcome others for self pride..but for our own guidance with sheer clarity and for our salvation… Debate is always not pleasant coz others talk against our / your view… so be patient and bring the right thing and expose….and don't expect anyone to applaud you…ensure you / we learned something from debating a topic..
Now look.. what is the use of your last thread for members or my this thread… just wasting their time in reading this which are completely personal conversation…. Let’s stick with topic on what we debate … that’s helpful… handshake -
Peace brothers and sisters....
Now the topic from LGBT to Lut community... Bikrun are you still debating? Coz now you brought a new concern leaving desire... APPROACH . that also confused? Why you add sexually when the word is only referring approaching /nearing...one example 2830..Insert any meaning of this word which suits to other appearances... No way you can change the word doesn't give the meaning of approaching or nearing while it get many other meaning... Sexually is not meant... The question is why they approached men leaving women for which Lut was furious...
Bikrun i am not addressing you but commonly from here onwards.... Since you officially withdrew from debate saying remaining in your opinion regardless what is debated... but I am here even to shift from my opinion if I find guidance here with clarity.. ...Dear believers... If Lut men not preferred men instead of women... For what they preferred in men? For which Lut could not control himself even to the extent of giving his daughters ...
Carefully read verses 1561-72.....
*Who actually came to Lut, was it women? No... Quran clear Men Messengers ..
*Why Lut worried seeing them since they were men that also different to his community and decent not the way of his own men?
*Why men came running hearing Lut's guests with full of rejoice....?what is in men for another men to rejoice. For that rejoice Lut against.. Why Lut against to some people's rejoice..
Why when the men rushed to Lut, then Lut begged not to shame and disgrace him... used two words (tafdhahuni..tukhzuni) It's not attack and harm them but disgrace and shame... What is it?
Why Lut said these my daughters if you are doers... (it's a big topic) but somehow Lut told this to those men just to save his guests.. ...
Read now 1178-79
Then why those men disliked the daughters of Lut... Saying "you know what we want"...what they want if not women... when Lut gave daughters saying as they are pure. .they refused said not their 'Haq'--right... So they have made their own rights... Like the LGBT claim now...
*Why Lut should ask "Isn't there any man among you? of course that suits for them... But they were men strong doing all robberies...not weak men... But Lut meant rightly...
Without Lut story I brought glaring evidences.. But debate is gone to the extreme so brought Lut story as well.
Those who claim lut men did something else not homosexuality .. Then, What is that something else while refusing Luts daughters..?let me add these comments and questions as well to ponder....
Lut’s People came rushing with pleasant mood and in fact rejoicing… No one will come to harm and attack guests in a rejoicing, pleasant mood..…(if they came rejoicing mood it means there is enjoyment once met the guests) .. further Allah told they came rejoicing.. not Lut.. while that rejoicing mood was not at all pleasant to the Prophet of Allah, Lut, once he saw them (he was straitened and uneasy and told distressful day but offered his daughters)…Prophet Lut told the people who came rejoicing, “not to shame me and not to disgrace me but was not reluctant to give his daughters to such”… How contrary that is…giving daughters in a pure manner seems to ease the disgrace and shame that could happen if they accept daughters instead of guests..… People came pleasant mood to enjoy something but Prophet talking against them not to Shame him. So in this rejoicing there is something that can shame and disgrace and straiten and make uneasy a BELIEVER...Had they attacked the guests, it won’t be shame on Lut but on those who were attacked a harmful effect..Shame coz Lut can’t see something happen that is not morally right in his understanding.. simply it could be disgusting for him with reasons.. he knew very well about his people and for what reason they were rushing… Coz they were his guests…so no attacks or harming the guests took place… that proves by Lut was ready to handover his daughters saying “Daughters of mine are PURE for YOU” (why pure for them for what reason? For toying or playing or attacking or prostitution or in marriage) so no attack… something else… but even the daughters of Lut not given the rejoice for what they rushed in…(they wouldn’t rush to take the daughters of Lut coz they know Lut daughters are always with Lut which they always rejected) but they came in a rejoicing mood… not to have Lut’s daughters, but having known MEN have arrived as guests in which they have something…that was their reason for rejoice…Why that gave them a pleasant message…at the same time not for Lut? What is that they would do to the guests of Lut if not attacking or harming and do with a rejoicing peaceful manner which Lut couldn’t bear and straitened…?
Can anyone answer to these concerns logically within quran if you support homosexuality and claim that Lut community didn’t do homosexuality and it is a preconceived mental attitude that led us imagine so.. I don’t bring other books to support quran when I explain quran.... but we can always refer other books what it says … why you claim it is not sin of great magnitude while God claim so? What those people did to deserve such a horrible disastrous devastation by rooting out a complete nation while we only see they did robberies other than that this which confuses you… What is that great act Lut claim that you people practice what no one practiced before you..? What is it that no one has done before Lut’s community by nearing Man to Man leaving women which gives rejoice as a result? Bring one example except homosexuality? Go pls… look for examples of communities before Lut… you find what they did as acts to deserve destruction… all they did are some immoral acts (you can name) for which they were destroyed..Didn’t Lut know about previous communities to claim so? So this has to be special away from Nuh to Ibrahim’s communities…All did great sins…but they didn’t do one thing which Lut claimed particularly…name it…Peace....
-
The verse in question 26165 “أَتَأْتُونَ الذُّكْرَانَ مِنَ الْعَالَمِينَ” starts from the word “أَتَأْتُونَ” a passive form of “أتى” correctly means who or which has been produced, which has come or which has been brought in. This word “أَتَأْتُونَ” is the derivative of the same root of “آتُوا” and “أُوتُوا” used in the verses of giving Zakat “آتُوا الزَّكَاةَ” (243, 283, 2110, 2277, 477, 911, 2241, 2278, 2456, 5813, 7320), produced or given the book “أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ” (2101, 2144, 2145, 319, 3100, 3186, 447, 4131, 55, , 557, 929, 5716, 7431, 984), given knowledge “أُوتُوا الْعِلْمَ” (1627, 17107, 2254, 2880, 3056, 346, 4716, 5811) and practice or implementation of “آتَى الزَّكَاةَ” (2177, 91 and “يُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ” (7156, 971, 273, 417). However, to bring male to male fornication in this verse 26165 the Deviated Translators falsely translated “أَتَأْتُونَ” to mean “approach” and invented lies in the translation of the verse 26165.
They have also replaced God’s memorandums (الذُّكْرَانَ) with “men” and invented lies of “approaching men for sexual satisfaction”
True meaning of the verse in fact is " Brought/produced the memorandums from the overall knowledgeable/scholars"
Now assess the rest.
Salam,
26165
Why atatuna means here approach? It never means something like this in the whole quran and suddenly here it means "approach sexualy?" Who says so?
Asuming it is about homosexuality, why it talks only about males approaching sexually males? Maybe because there is a preconceived idea.
Then next verse says "and u leave your mates". Still this verse could be talking about many many things and not necessary homosexuality. Maybe we should check on why this irrepressible need to relate everything to adultery or homosexuality and leave behind what is indeed a huge sin, and explicit.
In any case, I missed to talk about it on purpose because as i told u, i dont see any explicit prohibition and it is my choice to think so and it is yours to think the opposite.
God knows best
-
The verse in question 26165 “أَتَأْتُونَ الذُّكْرَانَ مِنَ الْعَالَمِينَ” starts from the word “أَتَأْتُونَ” a passive form of “أتى” correctly means who or which has been produced, which has come or which has been brought in. This word “أَتَأْتُونَ” is the derivative of the same root of “آتُوا” and “أُوتُوا” used in the verses of giving Zakat “آتُوا الزَّكَاةَ” (243, 283, 2110, 2277, 477, 911, 2241, 2278, 2456, 5813, 7320), produced or given the book “أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ” (2101, 2144, 2145, 319, 3100, 3186, 447, 4131, 55, , 557, 929, 5716, 7431, 984), given knowledge “أُوتُوا الْعِلْمَ” (1627, 17107, 2254, 2880, 3056, 346, 4716, 5811) and practice or implementation of “آتَى الزَّكَاةَ” (2177, 91 and “يُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ” (7156, 971, 273, 417). However, to bring male to male fornication in this verse 26165 the Deviated Translators falsely translated “أَتَأْتُونَ” to mean “approach” and invented lies in the translation of the verse 26165.
They have also replaced God’s memorandums (الذُّكْرَانَ) with “men” and invented lies of “approaching men for sexual satisfaction”
True meaning of the verse in fact is " Brought/produced the memorandums from the overall knowledgeable/scholars"
Now assess the rest.
Salam,
I find this interpretation quite satisfying. Thank you so much. Only one question, how do you link it to the next verse? I can't find a clear way...
-
Salam, seekingtruth111
Thanks for you clear and wide exposition. I agree with most of it. Following your reasoningRed agreed. Obviously, we were created as a species sexual and viviparous.
Green there is a problem, at least for me, maybe for others, it is crystal clear. This verse (7189) does not say "child" anywhere, and does not say "male" and "female" anywhere, brother.
Peace
I am bit confused what you mean. Could you please translate (7189) .
To me this verse is describing pregnancy and childbirth .
Yes the verse does not mention child. It says give us a righteous. Righteous what?
Yes this verse does not mention male and female. But it mentions he and she.
http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=7&verse=189
(718910)
liyaskuna
that he might live(718911)
ilayhā
with her.Peace
-
True meaning of the verse in fact is " Brought/produced the memorandums from the overall knowledgeable/scholars"
It's funny how you claim to use cross-referencing to come up with a translation which requires you to throw cross-referencing in the bin in order to accept it.
I find this interpretation quite satisfying. Thank you so much.
See above. Your bias is obvious.
-
Peace everyone.....
2755 " Do you indeed approach men (rijjal) with desire instead of women (Nissa) ? Rather, you are a people behaving ignorantly."
2756 "But the answer of his people was not except that they said, "Expel the family of Lot from your city. Indeed, they are people who keep themselves PURE (Yathathahharun) ."Why I brought above two verses... To explain couple of matters...
First... Member Soitodani claiming in verse 26165 word 'Zukhran' is not male but memorandum... As if in Quran never used zukhran as male... 7539, 923, 5321 etc...so this root has the meaning of males as well... Beyond that it befits for 26165-166 with the flow of verses... Only males...
You brought some totally different meaning to 26165 while God brought the same Lut story in 2755 explaining same matter but using entirely two different words Rijjal and Nissa instead of Zukhran and Aswaj ...would you pls translate using those set of meaning the verse 2755 ...how hilarious you look...My next point is not connected with Soitodani..
But with homosexuality... Do you notice my fellow believers in 2755 when Lut advice and blame his people saying you approch men with desire in place of Women.... What is the answer of his people? 2756 indeed you people keep PURE.. It shows they were not pure while Lut family does ... In what they were not pure...? Matter discussed in previous verse is approaching Man to Man.. Now claiming pure... Try to grasp folks.. What they were practising... -
26166 - Wa (And) tazaroona (you blow up) maa (what) khalaqa (produced) lakum (to/for you) Rabbukum (your Lord/Sustainer), min (from) azwaajikum (your companion/comrade), bal (indeed) antum (you) qawmun (People/nation) aadoon (ordinary)
Hope you can now make free flow translation.
Salam,
I find this interpretation quite satisfying. Thank you so much. Only one question, how do you link it to the next verse? I can't find a clear way...
-
26.166
أَتَأْتُونَ الذُّكْرَانَ مِنَ الْعَالَمِينَ ﴿١٦٥﴾ وَتَذَرُونَ مَا خَلَقَ لَكُمْ رَبُّكُم مِّنْ أَزْوَاجِكُم ۚ بَلْ أَنتُمْ قَوْمٌ عَادُونَ ﴿١٦٦
And you come to the males of the worlds and you scatter/winnow what your Sustainer created for you from your pairs you are indeed a hostile people.
It is speaking about coming not to the men but to the males, in other ayas it has been a question of loving to be with men (rijaal) and excluding women (nisaa' but here it is not speaking about rijaal, but about males of the worlds, which should comprise any male,
and scatter or, may be, disdain what your Sustainer created FOR YOU, from amongst your pairs.Here the word "azwaj" plural of zawj does not have to be of another sex, but of the same kind.
It has been convientely translated as wives, spouses and other things similar, but in fact in Qur'an is clearly used azwaj also in the meaning of "of the same kind, or of the same species or of the same condition or standing. No reason to reduce it here to women, since when the Qur'an has clearly said women in other instances it could have also here said women. So this is a different question from the previous ones. The wording, the formulation is its own, not a repetition.
Also when it was a question of rijaal versus nisaa' the question was not lust, but preference and hate to women. Clearly Lut's people have no respect nor desire (as different from lust) for women for being with women for having dealings with women. They were segregating sexes all round, it was not a sexual question, but a social and human question. They went against nature trying to live as if women and men were two different species. That was the unprecedented fahisha of that mob. Making a sex dissappear using it only to reproduce more males, and having an only sex which had no bounds in its aberrant behaviour.
And admirable prophet Lut trew it on their face when he said "These are my daughters they are purer for you"
He was not offering them. What decent male, not even prophet, merely decent male would offer his daughters to a mob like that? It is an insult to male and prophethood to suggest such filth. Because his daughters were there, he was not hidin them like that mob, he did consider that her daughters were something, were women worth moving around just like any healthful human being, and not be ashamed of their sex or personality. He dis not such a cowardly, miserable deed as offer his daughters. It would have been more manly to offer his guests if he was thinking that he had "a right" to offer anybody.
He was a great prophet, and admirable, courageous being, a full gentleman and not a rapist or rapists supporter.
The thing is that making Lut into a question of "homosexuality", the whole sex-segregation strain in islamic myths and pseudo history has been made palatable and even normal, when the Qur'an clearly brandishes it as fahisha without precedents.
This is another trait that depicts very well the depth of "islamic" intelectual and spiritual degeneration and fraude with the words of God. Always turn them around to suit ones fancies, even if doing that a noble and courageous prophet like admirable Lut is slandered to shit.
Salaam
-
Salam,
I find this interpretation quite satisfying. Thank you so much. Only one question, how do you link it to the next verse? I can't find a clear way...
It is called confirmation bias. This kind of dishonesty is so dangerous when it gets into that vicious circle where you start of with a desire in mind and you seek something and you find your way back to what you desired. You haven't challenged or even improved your opinion just reinforced your sentiment of it being true.....
-
2755 أَئِنَّكُمْ A'innakum (your moaning/whinning/Squeal) لَتَأْتُونَ lataatoona (for providing) ٱلرِّجَالَ ar rajaala (human being) شَهْوَةً shahwata (of craving/longing) مِّن maan (whoever) دُونِ doon (minors) ٱلنِّسَآءِۚ an nasaaee (of the womankind/weak masses). بَلْ bal (Indeed) أَنتُمْ (antum) you قَوْمٌ qawmun (people/nation) تَجْهَلُونَ tajhaloon (ignore)
Note 'R J L' means 'having two legs', in that sense it means 'human being' that encompass both 'male and female'.
2756 فَمَا Famaa (Then/so what) كَانَ kaana (was) جَوَابَ jawaaba (answer) قَوْمِهِ qawmiheee (of his people) إِلَّآ illaaa (save/but) أَن aan (that) قَالُوٓاْ qaalooo (said) أَخْرِجُوٓاْ akhrijooo (expel/drive out) ءَالَ aalaa (the first) لُوطٍ Lootin (some Lut/Loot) min (from) قَرْيَتِكُمْۖ qaryatikum (your town), إِنَّهُمْ innahum (that they) أُنَاسٌ unaasun (people/human/folk) يَتَطَهَّرُونَ yatatahharoon (perfectionist/do perfection)
Now anyone can make the fluent translations of the above verses.
But which word here tells of gay sexuality? Rather we see "craving for minors of the womankind/weak masses".
Also Lut's wife was a female. Why was she punished? For male-male sexuality? Surprising!Peace everyone.....
2755 " Do you indeed approach men (rijjal) with desire instead of women (Nissa) ? Rather, you are a people behaving ignorantly."
2756 "But the answer of his people was not except that they said, "Expel the family of Lot from your city. Indeed, they are people who keep themselves PURE (Yathathahharun) ."Why I brought above two verses... To explain couple of matters...
First... Member Soitodani claiming in verse 26165 word 'Zukhran' is not male but memorandum... As if in Quran never used zukhran as male... 7539, 923, 5321 etc...so this root has the meaning of males as well... Beyond that it befits for 26165-166 with the flow of verses... Only males...
You brought some totally different meaning to 26165 while God brought the same Lut story in 2755 explaining same matter but using entirely two different words Rijjal and Nissa instead of Zukhran and Aswaj ...would you pls translate using those set of meaning the verse 2755 ...how hilarious you look...My next point is not connected with Soitodani..
But with homosexuality... Do you notice my fellow believers in 2755 when Lut advice and blame his people saying you approch men with desire in place of Women.... What is the answer of his people? 2756 indeed you people keep PURE.. It shows they were not pure while Lut family does ... In what they were not pure...? Matter discussed in previous verse is approaching Man to Man.. Now claiming pure... Try to grasp folks.. What they were practising... -
It is called confirmation bias. This kind of dishonesty is so dangerous when it gets into that vicious circle where you start of with a desire in mind and you seek something and you find your way back to what you desired. You haven't challenged or even improved your opinion just reinforced your sentiment of it being true.....
Salam,
red how you know that?
why you do directly accept that I just replied without checking or you refuse it could be close to one of my already interpretations? Mr Wakas also.
Is there something wrong if there is a new point of view and I would like to see it further or agree or disagree with it later?
Maybe you are rushing judging things?
why is this so important for you that you spared such your words to me like this?
You just insulted me. -
No I did not insult you. YOU FEEL like I insulted you. Just like you feel like Soitto's interpretation is satisfying. You did not even try to hide your bias and I made that remark as an advice. Because if you were doing something wrong then it's you who will suffer from it, not me. My intention was good. And i'm not gonna argue why and how and what not. Worst case scenario you think I'm wrong in my assumption or that I'm an idiot and call it a day....but no.....behold you just insulted me!!!!
-
No I did not insult you. YOU FEEL like I insulted you. Just like you feel like Soitto's interpretation is satisfying. You did not even try to hide your bias and I made that remark as an advice. Because if you were doing something wrong then it's you who will suffer from it, not me. My intention was good. And i'm not gonna argue why and how and what not. Worst case scenario you think I'm wrong in my assumption or that I'm an idiot and call it a day....but no.....behold you just insulted me!!!!
Then thank you. I am sorry i understood your absolute assertion as an absolute assertion and not an advice from you who knows what's in the others not bias your assertions.
Now i hope this is over.
