Mushu's thoughts on the story of Lot
-
Peace
Mushu. Thankyou for your thoughts, and taking the time to analyze something.
Its nice to get a different Quranic perspective for something I strongly believe in. You must have heard of Dr Scott-Siraj Al-Haqq Kugle. I think he was featured in gay muslims (the british documentary), as well as a jihad for love. I know it is his strong statement that Islam does not condemn homosexuality. I wonder if you have read any of his research on this. He must have published something, but I don't know. I have lost access to academic literature since graduating from university.
Kukumber
-
Peace
Mushu. Thankyou for your thoughts, and taking the time to analyze something.
Its nice to get a different Quranic perspective for something I strongly believe in. You must have heard of Dr Scott-Siraj Al-Haqq Kugle. I think he was featured in gay muslims (the british documentary), as well as a jihad for love. I know it is his strong statement that Islam does not condemn homosexuality. I wonder if you have read any of his research on this. He must have published something, but I don't know. I have lost access to academic literature since graduating from university.
Kukumber
Salam Kukumber,
I have Dr. Kugle's book, Homosexuality in Islam and a couple of his essays as well. His book, in particular, was very well written although I don't agree with his interpretation of the Lut story. His position is that Lut was being sarcastic when he offered the daughters to the mob and he was never seriously considering giving them up. As I mentioned in my analysis, I think the angels were the very ones he was referring to as 'daughters' to emphasise that they were under his protection.
-
What do you make of 5327 then?
-
Fantastic analysis, Mushu. I am inclined to veer towards your line of thinking, I do have a question or two however.
Sorry If I overlooked it, but what of 780-81? Based on that, the approach has to be sexual, no? The approach is being defined as
A) an al-fahisha
B) exceeding the limits (musrifoon, he calls them).
C) Something no one in the world has ever done before; something unheard of."Approach" may not be sexual, but it doesn't exclude it. I think 'approach' encompasses a lot of things, mostly denoting a general usage.
Good work on the rijal vs qawm usage. I think that the group being all men is totally nonsensical. Did they all turn gay and established their own society? How were they intending on propagating the species? if that was indeed the case? How was Lot (with his trusty-wife!) amongst them, then? What was the wife doing to betray him? Was she helping them with their gayness, telling them to keep their gay on or what?
Interesting. After being given good news of a son in his old age, Abraham proceeded to argue in favor of Lot's people? Has to be a connection here. More than just the messenger-visits. Although that's one part, I feel.Nice catch on the possible nature of Abraham's guests. Way to think outside the box.
Might be of some help..I made some brief notes before, focusing on different terms used in the story .
They are called musrifeen in the context of them preferring men over ladies, hence exceeding the limits (781). They are also called fasiqeen/transgressors( 2174). 1716, 259, and 649 are good verses for fasiqeen, which all help us understand what these guys were doing. So, even if they were straight, it would not matter. They would still be zalimeen/wicked/unjust, committers of al fahisha/lewdness, musrifeen/those who exceed the limits, etc.
what did these people do? They tried to force Lot and his family out of town BECAUSE they (Lot's company) wished to be pure - 782 Their response to reason/sound judgment was to banish Lot (117.
-
Peace Jack and Mushu
Thanks for the further analysis Jack.
Its definitely something for me to ponder on as its a topic very close to me. Theres a person in my life very intricately connected to me, who does not identify as straight, and I have supported her 100%, and will continue to do so.
At the same time being muslim, I should have a quranic perspective, and in reality I have none except rejecting the common interpretation.
I will try to get hold of Kugle's books as a starting point, to gain some further knowledge.
Thanks for being a catalyst. -*
Kukumber
-
Great study Mushu!
I have just discovered your blog as well, so please keep posting. I'll subscribe to the RSS feed.
I've never bothered to study this story in depth because it hasn't really affected me. However, I recently became friends with a gay couple, some of the nicest people I've come to know, and through that friendship met many more homosexuals, some of whom are Arabs/Muslims.
I found that many of them still identify as Muslims, which was odd to me given the traditional views on homosexuality, but I guess one can never fully fathom the inner workings of another's psychology.Anyway, onto your study
I find "approach" to be sexual. It is very hard to give it any other meaning. Perhaps it is both sexual and non-sexual.
26165 - I find the usage of al-dhukran to be odd. It becomes "you approach the masculine over all the world?"
Simply putting "men" would seem to be the right thing here, although later on it does say "ta'toona al-rijal"
755 - This seems to be clear. "Shahwatan" is not rendered in a sexual way in 314, but despite the usage of "qawmun", it seems that this verse is to be interpreted the way it always has been. I consider shahwatan to be crucial to the whole discussion, because without it these verses could be understood in a non-sexual way, for how else does one approach a man "with desire".
But with "shahwatan" added, it seems that the qawm are approaching men instead of their partners. This suggests adultery to me (hence why the entire qawm and Lot's wife were killed), only with men also approaching men instead of their partners.
In researching "shahwatan", I came upon some interesting verses, such as this
5222
And We shall bestow on them fruit and meat in abundance - whatever they may desire
It is a series of verses talking about the pleasures of heaven, among them the infamous "hur" verse. Then we see that quite earthly desires are also to be allowed, such as fruits and meet and partners. This is odd to me given the negative connotation of "shahwatan" in 314.
So to conclude - these verses are saying that the people of this village, both men and women, are approaching men "in desire", instead of their partners.
From other verses, we know that human beings desire many things, such as women, sons, rich lands, etc. Is it possible that this is what is meant?
If so, then what could it possibly be, given that they should be desiring it from their own partners?I must conclude that it is sexual.
2933
And when Our Messengers came* to Lut, he was grieved WITH them, and felt straitened WITH them uneasy and they said "Do not fear and do not grieve Indeed we will save you and your following, except your wife she is of those who lag behind.*Note here that the verb for 'came' is 'ja'at', which is feminine. Keep this in mind when examining the rest of the story. Why is the feminine form being used here when clearly 'rasul' is masculine? It may be that the term 'rasul' is a title, and does does not indicate on the gender of the actual person. Besides, angels may be genderless.
This is the only problem with your study. Good job on spotting the singular verb, but there is an explanation for that.
The verb Ja2at is used because if you were to refer to Rusuluna with an ism ishara (hathihi, hatha, haa2ula2; i.e this and these in English), you would say Hathihi Rusuluna or ha2ula2 rusuluna.
If you were to say in Arabic 'our books fell off the table', you would say Saqatat kutubuna, not saqatoo kutubuna. This is because there is something in Arabic called Lughat Akaloonee al Baragheeth (The language of 'The flies bit me' and this is said when people make fun of grammatically wrong phrases by being wrong in itself.
The rule is that when using a verb BEFORE the plural form, you cannot use a PLURAL verb
You can never say Ja2oo al nas, but rather you say Al nas ja2oo, thereby putting the verb AFTER, or ja2at al nas, by putting a female singular verb before even when dealing with masculine plurals (we can say hathihi al nas, or ha2oulaa2 al nas).
These are my books--> Hathihi kutubi, not ha2ula2i kutubi.
So this is not an exception in the case of this aya but rather a grammatical rule; i.e it has nothing to do with the sense of the aya but is simply an application of correct Arabic grammar.
This comes across as a somewhat forced interpretation. It is important again to note that the ones rushing to Lot and his guests the people (qawmuhu), not the men. Were the women in the group also there to rape the handsome guests?
Take note of 1562, when the Lot first meets the messengers
1551-1552
And when the messengers came unto the family of Lot, He said Lo! ye are folk (QAWMUN) unknown (to me).It looks like the messengers themselves were mixed-gender. Both the villagers and the messengers are referred to as qawm.
Note how in 15/71, Lot says haola-i banateein (these are my daughters). In 15/68, exactly the same pronoun is used to describe the guests haola-i dayfee (these are my guests). This suggests that the guests (dayf) are in fact the people being described by Lot as his daughters (banateein). Remember in 29/33, the feminine 'ja'at' is used to describe the guests.
This turns the entire traditional narrative on its head. The ones rushing to Lot and his guests may have been both men and women, and the guests themselves are being described as daughters.
I'm not 100% sure about this. My first impression is that he is marking off the women to protect them.
Let us assume that the messengers were men and women. It seems like he is taking the women aside and saying "if you're going to do something, just know that these are my daughters." Ie at the very least leave my daughters alone.This would make more sense considering 1179
They said, "You know we have no right to your daughters, and you are aware of what we intend!"Ie You know what we want to do and that's why you're saying they're your daughters
-
Great study Mushu!
Thank you ths, and thank you for your thoughts and constructive criticism . Much appreciated.
These notes are somewhat out of date, as my views regarding certain concepts in the quran have changed. However, I'd like to address one point you've raised.
This is the only problem with your study. Good job on spotting the singular verb, but there is an explanation for that.
The verb Ja2at is used because if you were to refer to Rusuluna with an ism ishara (hathihi, hatha, haa2ula2; i.e this and these in English), you would say Hathihi Rusuluna or ha2ula2 rusuluna.
If you were to say in Arabic 'our books fell off the table', you would say Saqatat kutubuna, not saqatoo kutubuna. This is because there is something in Arabic called Lughat Akaloonee al Baragheeth (The language of 'The flies bit me' and this is said when people make fun of grammatically wrong phrases by being wrong in itself.
The rule is that when using a verb BEFORE the plural form, you cannot use a PLURAL verb
You can never say Ja2oo al nas, but rather you say Al nas ja2oo, thereby putting the verb AFTER, or ja2at al nas, by putting a female singular verb before even when dealing with masculine plurals (we can say hathihi al nas, or ha2oulaa2 al nas).
These are my books--> Hathihi kutubi, not ha2ula2i kutubi.
So this is not an exception in the case of this aya but rather a grammatical rule; i.e it has nothing to do with the sense of the aya but is simply an application of correct Arabic grammar.
Thanks for the information. I think what I was emphasising was that the verb was feminine, rather than it being singular. But in reality, angels have no gender anyway.
The thing with grammar is that it is designed and formulated to govern human language. We would be unable to communicate with each other if we did not have a comprehensive framework. The problem is when we try and tame the quran using man-made grammar. So although I'm happy to accept that a sing. fem verb is used as a rule as you've demonstrated above, I'm less inclined to believe the quran submits to such rules
3/183 Say, "Surely came to you messengers from before me with clear signs and with what you speak."
5/32 And surely came to them Our messengers with clear signs
The verb is sing. masc in 3/183 but sing. fem in 5/32, despite the subject being exactly the same. I suspect there is a reason why the verb is fem. in one case but masc. in another, but I do not believe the grammarians have the answer
Hence, the feminine verb in 29/33 may not in fact be there because of a grammar rule.
Having said all that, I don't believe it has a significant effect on the interpretation I've presented here.
Peace
-
Thanks for your comments HM.
Still finding out bro! The next verses to study would be those concerning marriage, relationships and sex to determine whether homosexuality is permitted. I haven't covered those topics yet, but inshAllah I will do.
Based on your quote above, which you posted in response to a question about "if homosexuality is permitted", did you later find out the answer and what was the conclusion finally?
-
You didn't realize Allah's nature as how the Universe organization do not have homosexuality...so no you can't interrupt this organization and have homosexuality...
-
"Would ye really approach men in lust (shahwatan) rather than women? Nay, ye are a people ignorant!" (2755)
-
Peace Mushu, all
I never responded to this post initially as I didn?t have time plus I didn't really consider it credible, but this issue was brought up elsewhere so I thought I?d share my thoughts on it here. This analysis is based on what Mushu has said
Lot repeatedly refers to 'qawm' (people), not 'rijal' (men) as criminals. Therefore, women of the tribe were also guilty of the crimes because women are part of qawmun.
?qawm? can be a group of men according to CAD. Secondly, referring to a specific group that is present as ?people/group? is very common in English and does not necessarily mean everyone of their kind present or not, e.g. can be based on geography, race, affiliation, practice etc. In Classical Arabic I do know it can mean party/company/tribe and I don?t particularly see a problem in referring to the present company as qawm/company. And lastly, if we take it to its extreme by saying qawm must include everyone of that qawm, then why not also Lot (and his family/followers), was Lot referring to his own family when he said these things?
The 'approach' to al rijal is not sexual.
What type of ?approach? would be otherwise unexplained. Secondly, the strong implication for this type of context would be sexual until proven otherwise. As also mentioned by Jack above.
The guests of Lot may have included females.
Maybe, maybe not ? inconclusive.
The guests are in fact the ones being referred to as 'daughters'
Maybe, maybe not ? inconclusive. No explanation given for different phrases.
On the one hand you seem to argue for ?approach? not being sexual then on the other hand say what is going on refers to ?infidelity?.
If ?approach? refers to males and females, then you fail to insert this meaning into the text consistently to see what happens, e.g.
Do you males and females approach males of the beings?
Do you males and females approach the rijal with desire besides nisa?And whilst some claim rijal/nisa to be other than men/women, in these verses a strong and undeniable link is made connecting males with rijal. I would very much like to see an alternative explanation to this.
Fail to explain why it uses ?Lord created/khalaq for you? when discussing mates, implying the difference is in their creation.
A big deal is often made about Lot saying none of the beings having done what they are doing, but since when is everything a human said 100% correct, and that it cant be taken as a figure of speech? There are likely other examples in AQ. I do know of ?I am the first/foremost to submit? ? well it cant be first, and if its foremost seems arrogant to me ? if taken literally of course. And ?he found the sun setting in a muddy lake? ? well he found, is different to what actually is, prophet Muhammaed being rebuked for errors in AQ. I am sure there are other examples.
Besides, his statement may even be true. It cannot be proven false at least.This is consistent with the fact that the entire tribe was destroyed.
See 2933 ?save Lot and his family/ahl?
The fact that the corruption and immorality had infiltrated the very household of Lot shows the gravity of the condition of the tribe. Lot could not even rely on his most intimate companion to be faithful in God.
The link that Lot?s wife was a participant in whatever was going on is an assumption.
Given that the entire tribe was implicated, we can say that the ta'tuuna of al rijal was not sexual. The people were approaching men whilst neglecting an nisa. This could possibly be a severe misogyny, where the men of the society were treated with favour, whilst the women were neglected and treated poorly and dominated. This type of crime can implicate an entire tribe (women can be misogynistic), unlike homosexuality which could only have been done by the men.
Previously you said
From looking at all the verses, we see that the tribe were guilty of gross crimes and were destroyed for their infidelity
I can only assume by ?infidelity? you mean the non-common meaning of unbelief/disloyalty.If you meant the common meaning of infidelity as ?The action or state of being unfaithful to a spouse or other sexual partner? then if you take ?approach? as referring to male and female, then you will have to claim males and females were having infidelity-relations with males, so some homosexuality was going on according to you. I guess this is why you claim the ?approach? is not sexual, even though all the evidence points to it being sexual. So basically something really heinous was done but its unexplained according to your version.
But the fear felt by Lot seems to be from the news given by these messengers.
Not necessarily.
The plural form suggests there is at least one male present amongst the guests of Lot, but does not denote an entire male group. By calling them his daughters, Lot is metaphorically emphasising that his guests are under his protection and should not be approached.
?forced interpretation?? Also see 1571-72.
Fails to explain what ?haqqin? is in 1179 - could be critical.
rather He destroys them for opposing and transgressing against Lot.
Where?
These notes are somewhat out of date, as my views regarding certain concepts in the quran have changed.
I assume rijal/nisa does not mean men/women argument, but nowhere AFAIK has it been studied thoroughly then presented, so it can be assessed/tested etc.
-
Salam Kukumber,
I have Dr. Kugle's book, Homosexuality in Islam and a couple of his essays as well. His book, in particular, was very well written although I don't agree with his interpretation of the Lut story. His position is that Lut was being sarcastic when he offered the daughters to the mob and he was never seriously considering giving them up. As I mentioned in my analysis, I think the angels were the very ones he was referring to as 'daughters' to emphasise that they were under his protection.
The people of Lot were detsrroyed for the same reason that God destroyed the people of Noah, Saleh, Ilyas and others. Homosexuality or not. Its not the homsexuality I look at in that verse but the rape and agressiveness.
"Indeed you ta'tuuna the men (al rijal), you cut the path, and you bring all vice to your society." But the only response from his people was to say, "Bring us God's retribution, if you are being truthful!"
29.29. "Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway?- and practise wickedness (even) in your councils?" But his people gave no answer but this they said "Bring us the Wrath of Allah if thou tellest the truth."
Maybe these guys were raping travellers and maybe this is why they were unique.
Plus there is no reason to believe that lot gave his daughters to be raped by the mob. The verses about Lot was not discussing that subject and there is insufficient informaton to make that deduction.
