Re: Why is there a difference
-
two verses for unmarried people, contradicting the traditional theory?
there is no contradiction
You are right. I should have written (confirming the traditional theory)
Sister Samia
I'm talking about a contradiction in the Quran within itself, I really care less what the traditions say
Cheers
-
Yep it is about lesbaians and gays, therefore there is no contradiction
SalamPeace Ahmed Baghat
Some people seem to feel that 'fahisha' has a sexual content. I cannot see this myself. Therefore I am unable to believe that this verse refers to homosexuality. Furthermore the next verse (416) never mentions 'fahisha' (at least from my understanding). I currently feel that for such a vague and undefinable term, confinment to your house is very strong punishment.
The problem I have with your understanding is that male homosexuality is far more destructive, from my understanding, that female homosexuality. This would lead me to believe that any 'punishment' for men would be stronger, if anything.
Roshan
-
Yep it is about lesbaians and gays, therefore there is no contradiction
SalamPeace Ahmed Baghat
Peace mate
Some people seem to feel that 'fahisha' has a sexual content.
That's right but I'm not one of those, I know what Fahisha means exactly in arabic, it means an awaful act regardless it relates to sex or not
I cannot see this myself.
of course everyone will see what they see
Therefore I am unable to believe that this verse refers to homosexuality.
ok, but your argument above is very weak because simply you are judging which act it more aweful from your perspective "a human perspective", however the One who made the law is a God not a human, therefore it has to be according to His perspective not yours neither mine
Furthermore the next verse (416) never mentions 'fahisha' (at least from my understanding). I currently feel that for such a vague and undefinable term, confinment to your house is very strong punishment.
I guess if they go to the women jail, it will be paradise for them, i actually believe that the solution provoided by Allah is the best to fight lesbianism
The problem I have with your understanding is that male homosexuality is far more destructive, from my understanding, that female homosexuality. This would lead me to believe that any 'punishment' for men would be stronger, if anything.
not sure about which one is worse, i see both of the acts as Fahisha and haram
Salam
-
Peace Roshan
Just to let you know, it seems to me that the punishment for the gays is far more harsh than the lesbians punishment
if you read again you will see in 415 that the punishment for the lesbians is to restrict them to the homes until they die or Allah give them another way out, this is based on the validity of 4 trusted witnesses, no physical harm mentioned whatsoever
in the case of gays we see that the 4 witnesses are not required, as well the punishment is "Iezohoma" "", this actualy means "to cause harm", and to translate it as "annoy" is laughable indeed
therefore it seems the punsishment is exacly as you expected it is more severe for thr men because we should harm them, for women we should not harm them rather restrict them to the houses until death or possibly Allah may cause another way out for them, and again in the case of women the validity of 4 trusted witnesses are required unlike gays
Salam
-
Selam all
in the case of gays we see that the 4 witnesses are not required, as well the punishment is "Iezohoma" "", this actualy means "to cause harm", and to translate it as "annoy" is laughable indeed
therefore it seems the punsishment is exacly as you expected it is more severe for thr men because we should harm them, for women we should not harm them rather restrict them to the houses until death or possibly Allah may cause another way out for them, and again in the case of women the validity of 4 trusted witnesses are required unlike gays
"Iezohoma" "", this actualy means "to cause harm",
Now it makes sense but how should we harm them? elektro voodoo rotfl
Peace all
FJ -
Selam all
in the case of gays we see that the 4 witnesses are not required, as well the punishment is "Iezohoma" "", this actualy means "to cause harm", and to translate it as "annoy" is laughable indeed
therefore it seems the punsishment is exacly as you expected it is more severe for thr men because we should harm them, for women we should not harm them rather restrict them to the houses until death or possibly Allah may cause another way out for them, and again in the case of women the validity of 4 trusted witnesses are required unlike gays
"Iezohoma" "", this actualy means "to cause harm",
Now it makes sense but how should we harm them? elektro voodoo rotfl
Peace all
FJWell, I guess it was left to the Musharie, i.e. the one who is qualified to do that, however this is much better for the gays than being killed as the OT ordered the jews and the christians to do because to harm them is far less than to kill them and is far more than home detention
I say something like adultry punishment is very suitable and it should be in public as well
Salam
-
Salaam all
Well, I guess it was left to the Musharie
I agree, but I think it's anywhere less than the 100 lashes for adultry because the 100 lashes were referred to as (torture), which is harsher than (harm).
in the case of gays we see that the 4 witnesses are not required
I do not think so. 4 witnesses were already mentioned, as well as fahisha. In this verse fahisha was not mentioned, but instead there was a pronoun and we immediately related it to fahisha. I think repeating 4 witnesses is redundant, and do not forget if 4 witnesses are not required then the door is wide open for false accusation.
I also do not think that this is for gay men only. It is for both. If verse 425 was about gay women, words in both verses should be balanced (and the two (fem) among you) as it says (the two (masculine) among you).
-
Salaam all
Well, I guess it was left to the Musharie
I agree, but I think it's anywhere less than the 100 lashes for adultry because the 100 lashes were referred to as (torture), which is harsher than (harm).
I totally agree sister, i actually meant sort of lashes like adultery, but I agree with you that it should be less
in the case of gays we see that the 4 witnesses are not required
I do not think so. 4 witnesses were already mentioned, as well as fahisha. In this verse fahisha was not mentioned, but instead there was a pronoun and we immediately related it to fahisha. I think repeating 4 witnesses is redundant, and do not forget if 4 witnesses are not required then the door is wide open for false accusation.
Well, I thought for a glance that I may have to agree with you however I read the verses again in Arabic thoroughly and I could not see it fit so let's look at the two verses in details
15- And the women who commit lewdness, you shall bring four witnesses over them from amongst you; if they bear witness, then you shall restrict them in the homes until death takes them, or God makes for them a way out.
16- And the two men who commit it from amongst you, then you shall harm them. If they repent and amend, then leave them alone. God is Redeemer, Merciful.
(15)
(16)-> Let?s start with the lesbians ? And the women who commit lewdness?, as you can see I removed the word TWO, because the verse is talking in PLURAL not dual regarding the women, the condition that follows next clearly indicates that this condition is only for the women ? ?, ? you shall bring four witnesses over them from amongst you?, can you see the word ? ?, ?over them?, IT IS ONLY FEMININE, ?Alaihuna?, i.e. this condition is only for women, if it meant to be for both ?men and women? then it should be ?Alaihum?, see how it can?t fit.
-> with the gays, we never see any call for witnessing, we also see that it is talking in dual, as well we can clearly see that the harm that should inflicted upon them SHOULD CONTINUE UNTILE TWO CONDITIONS ARE MET ? ?, ? then you shall harm them. If they repent and amend, then leave them alone?, this is clearly very harsh because the harm will continue until, ? they repent and amend? and this should make the punishment for the gays far harsher than the women, it can also last with the gays a life time if they don?t repent and amend and being harmed a life time is far worse than being home detained a life time
-> actually the difference in punishment shows the wisdom of our God, because in the case of women being confined at home, there will be their husbands looking after them, in the case of men they have to work and support families not being confined at homes, hence we have to harm them until they repent and amend, even if this harm will last a life time because the verse was clear that we only leave them in peace if the repent and amend, ? If they repent and amend, then leave them alone?
I also do not think that this is for gay men only. It is for both. If verse 425 was about gay women, words in both verses should be balanced (and the two (fem) among you) as it says (the two (masculine) among you).
you mean 415?
Well I could not make sense from the above, sorry, anyway 415 was clealy specific that the condition of 4 witnesses applies only to the lesbians ? ?, ? you shall bring four witnesses over them from amongst you?, can you see the word ? ?, ?over them?, IT IS ONLY FEMININE, ?Alaihuna?, i.e. this condition is only for women, if it meant to be for both ?men and women? then it should be ?Alaihum?, see how it can?t fit.
Salam
-
Salaam All
In verse 4 25 "...and after they have been taken in wedlock, if they commit "fahisha", their punishment is half that of MohSanaat".
No mention of witnesses. Can we say we do not need witnesses?can you see the word ? ?, ?over them?, IT IS ONLY FEMININE
Of course it is and should be. What I am saying is that, Arabic sociolinguistics is built on Western sociolinguistics which states that "he" contains "she" but not the reverse. I say that The Qur'aan has its own sociolinguistics and we should not apply the rules of human - and late- sociolinguistics to it. Since the Revalation is addressing both genders, we should stick to this in EVERY verse unless a verse explicitly states otherwise. Now if you can convince me that these verses address MEN only, I will agree with your understanding.
According to the Devine sociolinguistics, if the address is to both genders, it will appear in the masculine "generic not real", and when it entails the opposite sex, it comes in the feminine form (also generic, not real). Since this verse talks about (nisaai'kum your wives) and since we have no verse for (rijalikum or any other word indicating your husbands) I will say that this verse covers both genders. Otherwise, it will seem that Allah is punishing wives only, because the next verse speaks of two males only, not necessarily married. I do not think verses 15 and 16 are linked by the same subject. They, however, concern both genders.
-
peace
He translated it and put that in to make it more clear what this verse talks about,
according to his oppinion. As does anyone else apprently.
I know what Fahisha means exactly in arabic, it means an awaful act regardless it relates to sex or not
Is till dont understand how this becomes homosexuals, especially if it is regardless of it relating to sex or not. How does an awfull act translate into homosexuality? Is war homosexuality too?
ok, but your argument above is very weak because simply you are judging which act it more aweful from your perspective "a human perspective", however the One who made the law is a God not a human, therefore it has to be according to His perspective not yours neither mine
However to understand "the one", we need to;
He translated it and put that in to make it more clear what this verse talks about
according to his oppinion. As does anyone else apprently.
so the oppinion of "the one" is in reality in the eyes of the reciever, not the book.
of course everyone will see what they see
as clearly demonstrated above.
It must be something else. it makes no sense that God would order such a fuzzy term for punishment for something that itself appears to be fuzzy. Why? because this approach creates subcultures, and secret societys, and they can prove to be very dangerous. If you have it out in the open, you know what youre dealing with. I feel the same way about neo nazis btw. Let them talk themself out of voice, rather than serving them a martyrium, that will strengthen them in their wrong doing. Im not saying the Quran is wrong im saying that this approach/explanation makes little sense, in actual reality. All i haev seen so far is peoples personal biases, but an agreeable understanding is yet to come.
Altso while we are at the subject. How can anyone make sense out of flocking for adultry?
Peace
-
Peace magi. A guy as perceptive as you should know that for every verse there is a subjective opinion by someone on it,(with corresponding so-called objective evidence to back it up. .),and that is indeed creating lots of confusion,fuzziness and 'secret societies'/cults/sects....It all comes down to brainwashing,conditioning,and the need to make sense of the persons subjective world,regardless of the realities of the actual real world....Seat of the pants theorising,delusions,illusions,wishful thinking,blind following due to lack of personal thought/research,mixed with bits of truth...
As for flogging for adultery,the verses are debated on this forum to mean public indecency,homosexuality,adultery,formication etc,etc....No clear verifed reality or loose agreement....And what of the need for 4 witnesses,why not 1,2 or 3? How many witnesses needed for rape,because if someone tells me 4,i will tell them they are an idiot and delusional.....Since when did rapes or adultery happen with 4 people casually witnessing these events....? Man,even if there are no witnesses for a rape or an affair,surely pregnancy or other physical evidence (dna,scientific evidence etc,etc.) will be a major factor in the abscence of the four fairytale witnesses?
And what in heavens name will whipping a person do to stop them commiting adultery? If its an effective deterrent/punishment then why isnt every every crime such as theft,lying,fighting etc,etc carrying the same punishment in the quran,so as to act as an effective deterrent/punishment for all crimes...If whipping can deter/punish an adulterer,why shouldnt it also deter/punish a thief or a liar,or is god/quran being inconsistent/irrational here?
The more i read and compare with real-life reality,the more i see the total irrelevance and non-applicability of these issues to real-life...
Finally,im sure the priests and interpretors will see to it that many commited relationships will end up being termed as 'adultery' because they dont adhere to a ritual understanding of marriage,as decreed by these priests,and so will be punished with the requisite sadistic whippings...you think our current societies are cloak and dagger and oppressive/manipulative.....? If these folks ever get into power it will be taliban and thought police all over again......Spanish inqusition anyone?
Ps; watch the apologetics and different interpretations now fly in from various posters....Ideologically,delusionally and dogmatically commited to this divine book,regardless of the human suffering and practical consequences... -
Wow. No apologetics from me. Just wanted to say though it seems like you genuinely and intensely hate the quran. i mean that shines through clearly in your posts. My question is, why bother with it then? If this book makes you so frustrated and unhappy, why do you still care? I'm really curious, not trying to be mean. If I disliked a book this much, I'm pretty sure I'd just let it go and move on with my life; wouldnt be worth the unhappiness.
Is it because you have this need to get others to agree with you? Again, not trying to be mean. I'm just trying to understand why you even concern yourself with it at all.
-
Peace Enquier
I have to agree to some of the things you say but this bit about the thought police getting into in power .I will let you into a little secret the thought police are all ready in power .
Cave dr I don't think enquirer is the only one who thinks he has to get othere people to agree with him I believe it is a human trait.
Peace Salim
-
peace
And what in heavens name will whipping a person do to stop them commiting adultery?
Well they will likely be dead for one. Unless we adapt the "civil" practice of whipping, then jailing, then whipping etc. untill the "dept" is payed. Other than that i agree with you a long way down the line as usual. I think we should try and understand these issues rather than just settle for what is obviously insane, and out in the weeds, or discard it all together.
If our set criterion is that the Quran contains no errors. Then obviously there is something wrong with our understanding and translation, as it pr. the book itself is out of line with reality. When i use my heart, my mind and eyes, it is blatantly obvious, that the offered solution to these problems does not work, have no real intimidating effect, and will not prevent or stop adultry. As you say all the debates on the matter has lead nowhere and everywhere. However, all that has been suggested related to whatever is so punishable has been sex and marriage. Are there other options than those, that may not be entirely obvious?
I belive that homosexuality is not natural, because it is directly against the observable intend. Plus it seems to come along with a load if problems. How did it become problems? By people hunting them. They went underground, started to lobby, and along with their soddomite elite freinds, a powerfull gay movement was born. Subtly changing peoples view on it, even make it go from unnatural to cool. All because they where driven into the shadows. And these are the facts folks.
What does it solve to give people house arrest, but to make them angry and vengefull and even more transgressing? Do we have trustworthy testamony that jails work? I dont think we do. On the contrary, both isolation and jail in general has a tendency to breed sociopaths. If you werent nuts when you got there, you will be when you leave.
So im suggesting that we are looking at the verses in a wong understanding entirely. But i have no suggestions to what alternatives there is. The reason we keep comming back to these understandings is because we had them, and the bias beforehand. This is no place to start truthseeking from.
peace
-
Peace Magi
I believe to truly understand the Quran you have to come away from the idea of being a Quran Alone Follower and look at your self as a student of the Quran . As a student you can use your intelligence and reason to understand verses and then decide what is right or wrong .
For example if a teacher teaches you to value your life to look after your self and be in charge of your destiny ,then to see if the student has learnt anything the teacher tests them by telling them to kill them selves .the students does one of 3 things .
Follow the teachers command and kill them selves ( BLIND FOLLOWER)
Believe in what the teacher has said but ignore it ( FOLLOWER)
Use his or her intelligence and reason and stand up and disagree with the teachers (INDIVIDUAL)
My reasoning tells me that Quran is trying to lead us to become more in control as individuals and wants us to make decisions as individuals and has inbuilt test so that we can check our self?s as we go along studying The Quran .
We have to remember that we are all individually responsible for our actions and J day we can not blame other?s even The Quran.
Peace Salim
-
Peace
Yeah i hear you bro...like
http//www.yellowstone-online.com/octoberpeace2/17.jpg
;D
-
Salaam all
We have to remember the "limits" set by Allah. Sometimes it is the lowest limit and sometimes it is the upper limit., some
times both limits are set for some issue. I see a lot of arguemet concerning the number of salaat. If we find that more than one arguements are valid, we should accept that 2 salaats are the minimum limit. You can pray as many times as you wish, but not to go below two salaats per day.The penalties in particular are called limits. If we believe that the Qur'aan is not limited by time nor by space, we should not argue about the kind of punishment because we have the freedom to go below an upper limit. Maybe sometime, somewhere, some people will find the punishment we consider barbaric, very humane and appropriate!! The mistke is when we jump unnecessarily to apply the upper limit when it is not suitable for our mentality or our time.
Salaam all
-
Peace cavey,salqan,magi and all.
Cavey; yes,i believe it is a human trait to want some people to agree with you....Dont worry about being mean to me,ive been through much tougher criticism than this forum....im married for petes sake...
Also,to be honest i dont really hate the quran,i dislike its being used as an idol,and its being used to justify oppression and injustice....i dislike it as much as i dislike the bible or pop-idol....I will also state despite some problems in life,which everbody has,i am extremely happy now ive let go of my idolisation of the quran and religious dogma...Im just trying to spread some of my happiness and some ideas that may help others.....Take it easy young man....Magi; i like your spirit bro,i really do,just realise that the truer picture of reality comes through your own life-experiences and knowledge from many,many sources which can at least be partially verified...please dont confuse yourself by thinking we have to understand all the quran or even that we have to refer to it for guidance....Millions walk the path of morality and happiness without even any book or religion....something to think about bro...God is reality my man...And we are reality to...
salqan; i liked your little analysis of the follower/individual and being a student of the quran etc,i also partially agree that some thought manipulation is already in effect in society....I will ask you one question,why dont we be students of reality/life/experience/wisdom rather than referring back constantly to a book as a benchmark,shouldnt the benchmark be reality,cause and effect and practical verification?
Peace all. handshake muscle
-
Also,to be honest i dont really hate the quran,i dislike its being used as an idol,
Peace
You understand that if someone believes the Qur'an is from God, and they follow/study/read it, it's not idolatry. It is, from their point of view, following God. Idolatry is putting things up beside God. When that person (who believes the Qur'an is from God), follows the Qur'an, that person is following God's words, thus, that person is following God. I hope you can see this. I'm not trying to win or persuade you of anything, I just want to point that out, because that's how it is.
Peace.