Does Islam accept LGBTQ community as Legitimate?
-
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. -
Salaam all.
Topic is getting technical day by day.
But very informative for me..learning new things from all the posts.
Wasalaam -
When God destroy a town after it has been warned thoroughly… God is just….We can’t ask why HE destroyed it coz we have very limited knowledge of it…The wife of Lut was also part of dreadful destruction… Remember God only said, He saved Lut and his family except his wife…Even Ibrahim was also worried about Lut and not about any other family or believers… Ibrahim knew there were no believers in that town other than what he worried… analyze sensibly all occurrences of Lut story…
there is no one who was saved except what is stated above…5135-36 “So We brought out such believers as were in it, but We found not therein except one house of those that have surrendered themselves” ……
Messenger came to Lut probably not far from morning .. “is not morning near?”… and informed to Lut to shift to another place without looking back… Lut’s wonderful daughters would have been definitely in those saved, coz his family… Now, imagine with such atmosphere do anyone think that Lut would have gone door to door claiming “ there is gonna be a destruction so handover all the innocent children(boys & girls) and women(young and old) and animals to me …. I am moving with my family.. you taste the destruction”… impossible…. Isn’t it? But Lot did warn them of destruction in advance… but on the day It was a secret advice to Lut… So he accomplished it and Lut and his family was saved from that disaster…The town was completely eradicated.. Lut’s progeny prospered in another place….
Now, I can also ask the same way Soittosondhani asked… Why God destroyed the rest… did the children practiced homosexuality in that society.…. Or in any destruction of the past, why the above group should deserve as well the same fate of each town destroyed… for example in Nuh’s story… Did God save the children of the disbelievers? Would the disbelievers hand over their children to Nuh to board in ship? What they did? But if adult whether women or Men destroyed then they deserve it coz they have not accepted the messenger’s call and denied and remained in their opinion adamantly after knowing the manifest truth....Remember for only one reason God won’t destroy any nation…. There are loads of reasons… Messenger’s bring good ideal life style from God.. and no one will be destroyed the next day with anger for not accepting…God is just… but after long long advice and hard work of delivering the complete message only such happens...(take example of King Pharaoh.. how much God used Mosa to pass the right message to that nasty man in vain) .There is no surprise for what reason Lut’s wife was part of it…First of all she was a disbeliever of her husband who was messenger of God…When the men came in rejoice towards the guests, Lut didn’t brought the wife also but only the daughters calling they are pure for you (only the pure can be called pure and not the impure, further wife of Lut..).. when the word pure is used it can only be in pure manner not throwing at them like prostitutes…read what I wrote carefully…. No need for me to repeat…People can add any meaning with prejudice or unknown to any word with the root to substantiate their claim but only one meaning God meant and only one meaning would suit though root has different meaning…for example we are debating whether ‘Slaughter or Separation or etc’ for one word… but we all know only one thing happened not everything…. So let’s find out….
5437 “Indeed They tempted ( rāwadūhu ) him(Lut) about/of his guests. Then We blinded their eyes …. … ” …. Why to blind or rather obliterate their eyes / vision when they tempted him about his guests..? blinded the vision of all of them who came there not one person.. Why the Vision and not their Attention? it all suits one direction…
The word rāwadūhu has to be precisely studied to further get closer to the proof, coz it has been used to refer seduce in other occurrences mostly connecting Yousuf and the woman who seduced Yousuf…while it has other meaning…Just compare 5437 with 1226… concentrate on “She seduced (rāwad)me Ann nafsi” (1226) and “They tempted(rāwad) him Ann DaifiHi (5437)
These are glaring evidence within quran.. -
Quote from jKhan
A) " When God destroy a town after it has been warned thoroughly… God is just….We can’t ask why HE destroyed it coz we have very limited knowledge of it…The wife of Lut was also part of dreadful destruction… Remember God only said, He saved Lut and his family except his wife"
B) "Now, I can also ask the same way Soittosondhani asked… Why God destroyed the rest… did the children practiced homosexuality in that society.…. Or in any destruction of the past, why the above group should deserve as well the same fate of each town destroyed"
Comment
A) At least you have realized that the cause of misfortunes of Lut's wife was not male homosexuality. Thanks.B) If Allah clearly not informs the cause of destroying any past nation(s) in the Quran, we should acknowledge the matter unknown, instead of imposing our own notion/assumption on it.
-
Peace... Soittosondhani....
A) At least you have realized that the cause of misfortunes of Lut's wife was not male homosexuality. Thanks. ~~~~~ ……. Did I ever claim that the wife of Lut was unfortunately one of those died as a result of practicing homosexuality….what is your point….. where is your reasoning after all this explanation..…town was destroyed for sure so did the people in it except Lut’s family…. But I was reiterating the core of Lut’s story throughout which is mainly about homosexuality ….even if you claim that the story is something other than homosexuality as per your understanding but that is only one story,… I mean about one subject…got me?. other than that God only says that they did highway robberies…. But remember for that nation there was a Messenger explaining things clearly like all messengers did…. HE WAS NOT SENT ONLY TO NEGATE HOMOSEXUALITY….but to teach them everything like quran has taught us…. So she was one of those who denied the verses of God (messages) thus denying the Messenger….why don’t you grasp it….but God highlighted Lut fundamentally with one matter everywhere in quran whenever HE wanted talk about Lut.. that matter I linked to LGBT… pls grasp it… God destroyed everyone with the same fate.... be it homosexual or denying God's verses after everything was manifested to them.......
B) If Allah clearly not informs the cause of destroying any past nation(s) in the Quran, we should acknowledge the matter unknown, instead of imposing our own notion/assumption on it. ~~~~~ ……. if the matter is not clear for you as you have claimed officially above, it’s fine be in that assumption and acknowledge and try to improve to further enhance …. But don’t claim that others also not understood to remain as you are…. It's not assumption .... that's what it is written in quran... what you say may be assumption as you have already claimed....