Gay and Muslim?
-
Salam
The reason of "natural" in "human behaviours" (vs. human organs) may not be entirely correct in finding the right path.
It is "natural" for people not to believe in the Qur'an and "be unjust"; ie. "human conditions etc."
And the Day the wrongdoer will bite on his hands he will say
"Oh, I wish I had taken with the Messenger a way
Oh, woe to me!
I wish I had not taken that one as a friend
He led me away from the remembrance after it had come to me
And ever is Satan, to man, a deserter"And the Messenger (Muhammad) has said,
"O my Lord, indeed my people have taken this Qur'an
as abandoned."(2527-30)
It is natural for human beings to abandon the Qur'an.
Therefore...
http//s12.postimg.org/x1fv1nnr1/natural.png
Peace
-
Salaam Yuliana,
Did you miss my post to you about pedophilia in humans?
Well, I do not justify homosexuality, just trying to put up a basic understanding for the phenomenon and I also said it might as well be a sin. Since we have not been able to scientifically prove, and due to political pressures not able to efficiently research on this topic properly, that homosexuality is either innate or not, it is difficult to really prove anything on this subject. But we need to have a certain understanding for these individuals.
The question is why it would render them non-Muslim on one falling point if they are otherwise goodly people and wholeheartedly believe in God. They can perhaps not do anything to change their behavior about the homosexual part.
It was said here that if they were homosexual and wanted to reform they could be regarded as Muslims, but if they did not they would not be Muslims. But changing something they cannot help I think it difficult.
Of course I take it as the homosexuality would be added to the repository of sins rather than rendering one a non-Muslim. But that is just my interpretation.
God bless you
-
I must have said not less than thirty times that marriage is sex between a woman and a man and sex is marriage between a woman and a man precisely because therefrom comes the birth of a new life, and then you come with this...
You still do not seem to value at all sex between a woman and a man, that is why you think that it is the same as sex between two people of the same sex. Obviously it is not. Sex between people of the same sex, the same as paper contracts and wedding ceremonies cannot result and will not result ever in the birth of a new life, while a one night stand between a woman and a man can result in it.
Salaam
?????
I think you have seriously tied yourself in knots with your argument. Sorry but you are all over the place and lack any consistency in your argument. If sex is marriage and marriage is sex, then that means a gay couple can have sex and then should be considered married. You are the one who is coming with this sex is marriage nonsense, not me! so how in any way am I devaluing sex or marriage between straight couples? You are the one who is simplifying sex and in turn simplifying marriage too. So according to your simplistic notion of sex and marriage, to be consistent with your premise, by saying sex is marriage and marriage is sex, you are not making any distinctions between the sexes. So gay sex is also marriage according to your premise. But then you say Gay sex is not comparable to straight sex (I know it isn't) But you are trying to say sex between a couple is marraige, so it's your words which you contradict.
so therefore you are saying then that sex is NOT marriage and marriage is NOT sex, because for your argument to be consistent it has to work for all sexes.
So then you must accept that it's more complicated than how you have it.
-
?????
I think you have seriously tied yourself in knots with your argument. Sorry but you are all over the place and lack any consistency in your argument. If sex is marriage and marriage is sex, then that means a gay couple can have sex and then should be considered married. You are the one who is coming with this sex is marriage nonsense, not me! so how in any way am I devaluing sex or marriage between straight couples? You are the one who is simplifying sex and in turn simplifying marriage too. So according to your simplistic notion of sex and marriage, to be consistent with your premise, by saying sex is marriage and marriage is sex, you are not making any distinctions between the sexes. So gay sex is also marriage according to your premise. But then you say Gay sex is not comparable to straight sex (I know it isn't) But you are trying to say sex between a couple is marraige, so it's your words which you contradict.
so therefore you are saying then that sex is NOT marriage and marriage is NOT sex, because for your argument to be consistent it has to work for all sexes.
So then you must accept that it's more complicated than how you have it.
Again, that sexy between a woman and a man is marriage, the one for which men pay ujur, and where they give the woman a mithaq ghalizan, what the Qur'an considers lawful, is sex what constitues marriage, so it is not me, it is the Qur'an, and I quoted some ayas and I am sure you have seen even if you do not want to recall them.
So no, if marriage is not sex between a man and a woman, but something else, why should gay people not marry if sex is not decisive and the fact that sex is the source of new beings is not decisive for marriage either, then what is the difference between gay marriage and straight marriage? That is your problem not mine. I think that your problem is that still you consider that sex between a woman and a man as something of no value and not sacred, therefore to you it comes as akin to gay sex. It is not.
Salaam
Salaam
-
After so many pages of this subject, I am starting to think that the fact that the Qur'an only speaks about homosexual acts in the context of the people of Lut may be indicative that what we are warned against is against a social more that is definitely ugly, destructive, when it does becomes a social more. In the whole of Qur'an outside the Lut ayas there is no injunction or condemnation or mention the evilness (or the goodness) of feeling attracted to the same sex, but there is plenty of warning against pure lust and there is plenty of praise or injunctions to get a partner of the opposite sex. So, if we can, we should have a partner of the opposite sex. That is the guidance.
The Lut ayas are there to warn against the evil of the vices that mainly males can be led to through making out of homo acts a socially recognized, indiscriminate behaviour. The acts and behaviour of the people of Lut make their deeds appear as those of a people who has fallen into the worst trap of lust, when sexuallity is taken over by lust as an offshoot of the power compulsion, of power-lust. The behaviour of Lut's people was a show of lust and power as they tried to trample on Lut's guests, they were a people gone beyond all bounds, it was collective public behaviour. When socially no bounds are set on sexual usages, it may end up, in homosexual as well as heterosexual acts in mere demonstrations of brute power. Male over female is the usual fare and very much admitted, either through payment or otherwise. Male over male is just step on the same road.
The intromission and the pounding on homo acts in societies when they are strictly private at the same time that there is no outcry for prostitution and other usages of women are only a sympton of the character of power show that some people have of the sexual acts as marks of power-lust. Power over women is not in discussion, it is basic, but when you do that to men, you are endangering their monopoly over power and risking the power security of all males, who should be de holders of that power over the women, but not deprive of power any other man. The boysclub conception of existence. The Qur'an does not allow and prohibits such a conception of sex and explains the sacredness of sexual coupling between men and women as mark of love and compassion, far from from the power-lust compulsion of those who attract on themselves the divine wrath.
The sexual mores of many oberreligious people seem still to be based on prohibitions rather then on the understanding of the goodness of the good things. Sex between woman and man should recommend itself not because of any prohibitions, but because of its deep virtues and fulfillment. When prohibitions overshadow commendations, it is a sympton that we are not appreciating the good things, and are like donkeys that only understand the stick.
Salaam
-
Salaam huruf,
Exactly, the biggest moral issue with the story of Lut may have been that they disregarded their women and even froze them out because of their preference to be only with their men, intimate relations or not.
Now that I think of it, is it really explicitly told in the story in Qur'an that it is homosexual sex the issue is about?
To me it feels mostly that they freeze out the women, like discrimination, to be only with their male counterparts, much like ancient Athens. Estrangement? Well, pragmatically it seems to be about homosexuality but can this really be it? I mean can a whole community turn on and engage in homosexuality as most men are disgusted by it?
Even with so much open-mindedness today about homosexuality, most men I know feel a bit disgusted by the thought of this kind of sex.
But okay, it is true that the people of Lut came to his house and demanded to get the disguised angels of God (probably because they were fair to look upon) and Lut offered his daughters instead so how are someone able to interpret it more than that they wanted them for intimacy. It just feels far-fetched that a whole community would engage in homosexuality.
God bless you
-
Salam
So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part?
(285)Rules
And those who guard their private parts
Except from their wives <- is referring to marriage
(7029-31)Definition of "wives"
a man's partner in marriage
Further, the "wives" can never be referred to "men".
"Man" cannot be "wife", but "husband".
Facts
It is "natural" for homosexuals to have "private parts".
(cf. natural human organs vs. human/animal behaviours (issue of just or unjust) -> is natural?)Therefore, they are also affected by the above rules relating to "private parts" (7029-31), UNLESS they have none.
Question
Whether "homosexuals" must guard their "private parts" EXCEPT to "wives" (women/marriage)?
Answer, choose one
Homosexuals "must guard" their private parts except to "wives" (ie. marriage)
Homosexuals "can use" their private parts to "anyone" (ie. same-sex marriage, etc.)
Indeed, you approach men with desire
instead of women
Rather, you are a transgressing people."
(781)Peace all peace
-
Even with so much open-mindedness today about homosexuality, most men I know feel a bit disgusted by the thought of this kind of sex.
Salam
What is the "natural" use of human butt?
Why we should not feel disgusted about this?
Do you feel disgusted about this?
You don't? wow
Peace
-
Ok let me try a different perspective on the gay issue. Was homosexuality allowed in Abraham's time and the following prophets time? Did any book ever condone homosexuality and tell us that God has allowed it? Remember even before Quran, The Quran itself tells us that prophet Abraham was a perfect example of a muslim. The Prophet Muhammad says he follows the religion of Abraham. Did the religion of Abraham ever put homosexuality in a positive light? Remember the Quran did not invent religion, nor did it come to change everything, but was revealed to confirm and reinforce the correct way of life, which is the belief in one God.
Are we to do away with all previous verses that have come before and say they no longer became relevant after the Quran was revealed? If homosexuality was never condoned, promoted, accepted pre Quran, then there is no way that God would allow it post Quran. If homosexuality was never looked upon in a positive way, then there is no grounds for saying that God allows it.
6161
"Muhammad, say 'Truly, my lord, my superior has guided me to a way that is upstanding. It is an established and upright custom and culture; the religion of Abraham, one rightly inclined while he had no one around him of like mind.' ""Who would be more excellent in his ways than someone who is submissive to God, acting in excellence, and following the religion of Abraham, one rightly inclined? God made Abraham near & dear to Himself."
395
"Muhammad, say 'God is true. Follow the religion of Abraham. He was rightly inclined while he had no one around him of like mind.' "2278
"Strive for God as He deserves to be strived for. He has chosen you, and has imposed no difficulty on you concerning custom. Follow the religion of your forefather and founder, Abraham! He has mentioned you, being the submissive ones earlier in this (compilation). Let the messenger and the message testify for you, and you testify for humanity! Keep to prayer, compliments, dignified speech, oratory, discipline & blessings, being promotions of good and well-being. Do what is best, vindicating and virtuous. Hold onto God. He is your support; the best of support and the best to help!"2135
But they will say, "Become Jews or Christians to be guided." Muhammad, say, "No. The religion of Abraham! He was rightly inclined while he had no one around him of like mind."Now we can see from these verses that the prophet Muhammed upheld the teachings, customs and guidance of Abraham. The Prophet moses would have done the same. Prophet Lut the same too. The question is, was the people of those times ever given license to marry and have sexual relations with men?
As Muslims we tend to think that Islam (submission to the one true God) began with the Quran, it's a mistake mostly made by the majority of sectarian muslims. But from Quran itself we are told that Abraham was the best example of a muslim and his way is the correct way, the correct example to emulate. So all of what the Quran does is confirm the best way, the correct way in accordance to what was permitted and not permitted.
Leviticus 1822 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination.
We know the old testament predates the Quran. It is also consistant with the Quran regards to the consumption of pork
Leviticus 117-8 And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.
The Quran is consistent with such a ruling, God did not intend to simply do away with the guidance from past scriptures that helped guide past generations of monotheists. I am sure that you could still call believers of the old testament as people of the book, moses people were also people of the book.Any true believer in god alone is a person of the book.What was relevant guidance for these people, is still relevant today and so I cannot believe that homosexuality then, would be written out of the Quran and become acceptable, when it would have clearly been unnaceotable for believers in the past pre Quran, then to be consistent with the laws of Abraham, the prophet under the instruction of God, would have to have upheld these guidelines and thus puts the issue of homosexuality in perspective.
-
Salam
What is the "natural" use of human butt?
Why we should not feel disgusted about this?
Do you feel disgusted about this?
You don't? wow
Peace
Salaam,
I have understood that you need to study English pragmatics. This is what lead us to our "communication issues". You misunderstand almost everything I write anywhere and I cannot believe it is because I formulate myself poorly.
The interpretation from your part is hilarious and does portray nothing of what I mean in my posts. You claim one thing while I meant the opposite.
God bless you
-
Power over women is not in discussion, it is basic, but when you do that to men, you are endangering their monopoly over power and risking the power security of all males, who should be de holders of that power over the women, but not deprive of power any other man. The boysclub conception of existence.
Nice. Boys clubs like the sort present in ancient greece and/or japan had concepts of manly love overriding that of a woman, who was considered subservient and a receptacle/tool but the real deal was with another man. Read an interesting book back in the day. The power balance was between young and old (the de rigueur coupling) and sometimes the newbie rather than someone already in the fold if age wasn't used. It was difficult to establish such with those on a more equal footing, the rank of age or status was most often used when it was incorporated as an established practice or somesuch. Things like these are all about power, achieving/retaining and the supposed benefits of such.Needless to say, there are different types of homosexuality. I know some who are born with it for whatever reason, call it hormonal imbalance or just another individual with their individual personality. Some may choose to go that route because of bad experiences with women of which I knew one. Some may just like kinky sex and doing a guy is kinky apparently if you're a guy and want a change. Or vice gender versa. Then there are the ones with no gender attraction, or the ones born with both and the confusion that arises...pretty sure there are other categories of 'all natural' puzzles that are placed in this world within humanity, not even beasts that certainly call into question wtf, for lack of a better word. It's not easy when people insist on lumping it all together and then by painting over all of the types with a holy brush. Nothing is really black or white yet we feel compelled to make it so because it's easier to digest and categorise and of course, the holier than thou complex of salacious tsk tsking. If someone was born with a vivacious personality, one'd be like it is what it is, if someone was born with a preference for the same gender we go omg haram y u no muslim. Regardless of whether the actual act of any penetration or even a hard on has taken place. I know some women who're like make sure the boys/girls don't spend too much time with each other, they might catch the gay somehow. Some people are a-okay with their boys being womanisers, it's even celebrated in some cultures as being the sign of a true blooded male but a gay son would be the end of times. It's beyond the pale for a woman to either be a maniser or a lesbian on the other hand, can't catch a break that gender.
Some opine that straight men take the concept of lesbians better because their fear of manly penetration is lessened visually or theoretically and what's better than one woman? Two women in sexy times eh. Anyways, socially, we're okay with women being touchy feely but God forbid it's two men. There's this thing in certain cultures where two men are totally comfy with holding hands in public just like girls but it evokes a strong reaction from those not used to it...anything beyond that is inconceivably awful. It's probably equal parts what we're used to, fear, social conditioning, expectations and so on which make us biased before we've even got to the actual stage of any sex or let alone emotions in a homosexual relationship. It's not what we're used to so we try to make things around us conform to an image of what is normal to us by using various justifications, most dreaded one is the 'it's...unnatural'. Pink was a manly colour back in the day, brawny got less in vogue and men that look like women have been preferred by certain cultures (wouldn't say i'm averse to it myself). Anyways, things change, different cultures whatever, ebbs and flows.
People don't really have a definitive answer to if someone is wired differently from God in terms of attraction. Some would say it's all in the head because it can't be 'natural', it's a disorder and we have to live with it or find a cure, it's a test so bear with it or the best one which is not an answer at all but a way to shut everyone up by throwing scripture around, bellowing haraaaam, not really caring about rhyme or reason or any explanation more than penis x arse = stuff of nightmares and hell. End of. I'm kinda okay I suppose with explanations of people being born into weird situations or drawbacks to living life normally...because many are born into weird situations and/or have drawbacks to living life normally. That certainly shouldn't stop us from questioning life around us, God's plan, and having an open mind and enough perception to listen to what God intends us to hear without shoving wrenches in the machinery ourselves by talking over the messages through the arrogance peculiar to humans in which we think we've wrapped it all up in a tidy parcel, lets move on to the next because there is never any new information that can be used to refine or even destroy our puzzle parcels once we've decided it's done and dusted.
-
Salam
Rules
And those who guard their private parts
Except from their wives <- is referring to marriage
(7029-31)Definition of "wives"
a man's partner in marriage
Further, the "wives" can never be referred to "men".
"Man" cannot be "wife", but "husband".
Facts
It is "natural" for homosexuals to have "private parts".
(cf. natural human organs vs. human/animal behaviours (issue of just or unjust) -> is natural?)Therefore, they are also affected by the above rules relating to "private parts" (7029-31), UNLESS they have none.
Question
Whether "homosexuals" must guard their "private parts" EXCEPT to "wives" (women/marriage)?
Answer, choose one
Homosexuals "must guard" their private parts except to "wives" (ie. marriage)
Homosexuals "can use" their private parts to "anyone" (ie. same-sex marriage, etc.)
Peace all peace
Unfortunately, translators, even excellent ones, God bless them, keep betraying themselves because of the ingrained and unnocited malecentrism which has pervaded all cultures known to me on earth, in spite of themselves. This is the case with the translation that is used in this message of muslims that I quote.
There are no wives in the Arabic text. In fact the aya is part of set of them that refer equally to men and women. Please read de preceeding ones and the follwing ones tot he ayas quoted by muslims
The text is spiaking the third person masculine, but referring to anybody, male or female, and does nto say "wives" but "zawj", that is, one of a pair, be it of identical things or be it of complementary things, like each part of a pair of shoes. So it could be properly translated as partner or consort or spouse, but no mention of wife, or of woman or of male or of man.
As to the mamalakat ayman... as we know they can be males or females and can be adscribed to males or females.
So in fact what is undoubted is that whatever is done or not done with the private parts is always in the intimacy with no more than one apart from onself. To note carefully is that if zawj is translated as wife, that would men that women would be authorized to have sexual partners, spouses of their same sex, or the they would be exempted of having to keep to their partners and could go freely with anybody else too.
Still good that it has been brought up. Thank you.
Salaam
-
Nice. Boys clubs like the sort present in ancient greece and/or japan had concepts of manly love overriding that of a woman, who was considered subservient and a receptacle/tool but the real deal was with another man. Read an interesting book back in the day. The power balance was between young and old (the de rigueur coupling) and sometimes the newbie rather than someone already in the fold if age wasn't used. It was difficult to establish such with those on a more equal footing, the rank of age or status was most often used when it was incorporated as an established practice or somesuch. Things like these are all about power, achieving/retaining and the supposed benefits of such.
Needless to say, there are different types of homosexuality. I know some who are born with it for whatever reason, call it hormonal imbalance or just another individual with their individual personality. Some may choose to go that route because of bad experiences with women of which I knew one. Some may just like kinky sex and doing a guy is kinky apparently if you're a guy and want a change. Or vice gender versa. Then there are the ones with no gender attraction, or the ones born with both and the confusion that arises...pretty sure there are other categories of 'all natural' puzzles that are placed in this world within humanity, not even beasts that certainly call into question wtf, for lack of a better word. It's not easy when people insist on lumping it all together and then by painting over all of the types with a holy brush. Nothing is really black or white yet we feel compelled to make it so because it's easier to digest and categorise and of course, the holier than thou complex of salacious tsk tsking. If someone was born with a vivacious personality, one'd be like it is what it is, if someone was born with a preference for the same gender we go omg haram y u no muslim. Regardless of whether the actual act of any penetration or even a hard on has taken place. I know some women who're like make sure the boys/girls don't spend too much time with each other, they might catch the gay somehow. Some people are a-okay with their boys being womanisers, it's even celebrated in some cultures as being the sign of a true blooded male but a gay son would be the end of times. It's beyond the pale for a woman to either be a maniser or a lesbian on the other hand, can't catch a break that gender.
Some opine that straight men take the concept of lesbians better because their fear of manly penetration is lessened visually or theoretically and what's better than one woman? Two women in sexy times eh. Anyways, socially, we're okay with women being touchy feely but God forbid it's two men. There's this thing in certain cultures where two men are totally comfy with holding hands in public just like girls but it evokes a strong reaction from those not used to it...anything beyond that is inconceivably awful. It's probably equal parts what we're used to, fear, social conditioning, expectations and so on which make us biased before we've even got to the actual stage of any sex or let alone emotions in a homosexual relationship. It's not what we're used to so we try to make things around us conform to an image of what is normal to us by using various justifications, most dreaded one is the 'it's...unnatural'. Pink was a manly colour back in the day, brawny got less in vogue and men that look like women have been preferred by certain cultures (wouldn't say i'm averse to it myself). Anyways, things change, different cultures whatever, ebbs and flows.
People don't really have a definitive answer to if someone is wired differently from God in terms of attraction. Some would say it's all in the head because it can't be 'natural', it's a disorder and we have to live with it or find a cure, it's a test so bear with it or the best one which is not an answer at all but a way to shut everyone up by throwing scripture around, bellowing haraaaam, not really caring about rhyme or reason or any explanation more than penis x arse = stuff of nightmares and hell. End of. I'm kinda okay I suppose with explanations of people being born into weird situations or drawbacks to living life normally...because many are born into weird situations and/or have drawbacks to living life normally. That certainly shouldn't stop us from questioning life around us, God's plan, and having an open mind and enough perception to listen to what God intends us to hear without shoving wrenches in the machinery ourselves by talking over the messages through the arrogance peculiar to humans in which we think we've wrapped it all up in a tidy parcel, lets move on to the next because there is never any new information that can be used to refine or even destroy our puzzle parcels once we've decided it's done and dusted.
I am glad to read something from someone that finally says it as it is, that there is no "homosexuality" as such, but many diferent phenomenons that can result in the outward attitude of indifference or dislike for the opposite sex as far as sexual relsationships are concerned, or even any realtions.
The roman and greek culture (and japanese I don't know) is true that at any rate women were politically and even socially meaningless so they could go further up scale. Matrons in Rome had their part cut out providing beastly males to maintain a ghastly empire by sheer force.
But if we look attentively at the background of homoproscription in the muslim sphere as we can grasp it today, I am afraid that that is very much so please do not confuse us with women, we belong on the top not with them. Do not spoil the bort for the whole of us. That claim coming from the mass of powerless "muslim" men lead by the overrligiousity that gurantees them, right from heaven, the absolute assuredness of their belonging to the top, and in order for anybody to beling to the top, there must necessarirly be a bottom part Women are the providentially there to be picked and entitled bottom part, no pun intended.
Who knows, we may get to that situation where males get also their bottom part, and the top is kept for the very, very, very top.
So indeed, sex is a very obvious field in whcih power battles are held. And Muslims are at the front of the battles for bottom power. So women, muslim in women societies will have it very difficult for a long time to come, while overreligious males hold on to the special relationship between male chauvinism and heavenly designs.
Salaam
-
You claim one thing while I meant the opposite.
Did you miss my post to you about pedophilia in humans?
We need to remember that homosexuality occurs in nature too and they do not have the same kind of consciousness as we do and still they are homosexual.
We proved that homosexuality is against God's (anatomical) design but it is not unnatural as the phenomenon simply exists and that not only in humans.
Salam
What is the "natural" use of human butt?
Should we feel disgusted, or it is "natural" and represent the truth? hmm
Yes, or No. Simple question.
Peace
The reason of "natural" in "human behaviours" (vs. human organs) may not be entirely correct in finding the right path.
Just cause it's natural or that it was made by the Creator doesn't mean it's good or nice.
-
Unfortunately, translators, even excellent ones, God bless them, keep betraying themselves because of the ingrained and unnocited malecentrism which has pervaded all cultures known to me on earth, in spite of themselves. This is the case with the translation that is used in this message of muslims that I quote.
There are no wives in the Arabic text. In fact the aya is part of set of them that refer equally to men and women. Please read de preceeding ones and the follwing ones tot he ayas quoted by muslims
The text is spiaking the third person masculine, but referring to anybody, male or female, and does nto say "wives" but "zawj", that is, one of a pair, be it of identical things or be it of complementary things, like each part of a pair of shoes. So it could be properly translated as partner or consort or spouse, but no mention of wife, or of woman or of male or of man.
As to the mamalakat ayman... as we know they can be males or females and can be adscribed to males or females.
So in fact what is undoubted is that whatever is done or not done with the private parts is always in the intimacy with no more than one apart from onself. To note carefully is that if zawj is translated as wife, that would men that women would be authorized to have sexual partners, spouses of their same sex, or the they would be exempted of having to keep to their partners and could go freely with anybody else too.
Still good that it has been brought up. Thank you.
Salaam
http//corpus.quran.com/wordimage?id=73472
Salam
I'm sure the issue you are raising is not relevant to the issue of this thread, and neither it distort the meaning or contextual meaning of the Qur'an.
Muhammad Asad
with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess - for then, behold, they are free of all blame,M. M. Pickthall
Save with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy;Shakir
Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess-- for these surely are not to be blamed,Yusuf Ali (Saudi Rev. 1985)
Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed,Yusuf Ali (Orig. 193
Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed,Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar
but not from their spouses or what their right hands possessed. Truly, they are not ones who will be reproached.Wahiduddin Khan
except from their spouses and those whom they rightfully possess , for which they incur no blameT.B.Irving
except with their own spouses or those living under their control; with such they are blameless.Except with their wives and with those of the captives in their hands; an act being then holy and incurs no blame;
(2011 Edition)
Except around their spouses or those committed to by oath, there is no blame.Abdel Haleem
from all but their spouses or their slave-girls??there is no blame attached to these,Abdul Majid Daryabadi
Save in regard to their spouses or those whom their right hands own; so verily they are not blameworthy -Ahmed Ali
And those who guard their sex except from their wives and women slaves of old. Are free of blameAisha Bewley
except from their wives and any slaves they own, in which case they incur no blame,Ali ?nal
Save from their spouses or (as a permission for men) those (bondsmaids) whom their right hands possess, for with regard to them they are free from blame.Ali Quli Qara'i
(except from their spouses and their slave women, for then they are not blameworthy;Hamid S. Aziz
Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess - for on these surely is no blame,Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali
Except with their spouses or what their right hands possess; then surely they are not blameworthy (Literally other than being blameworthy).Muhammad Sarwar
except from their wives and slave girls, in which case they are not to be blamed,Muhammad Taqi Usmani
except from their wives and those (slave-girls) owned by their hands,__ because they are not to be blamed,Shabbir Ahmed
They have intimate relations only with their spouses - that is, those who are rightfully theirs through wedlock. For such relationship they are free of blame. ('Aw' = Or = That is = And. (235-7)).Syed Vickar Ahamed
Except from their wives and the (captive) whom their right hand possess? For (them), they are not to be blameworthy,Umm Muhammad (Sahih International)
Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed -Farook Malik
except from their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for in their case they are not blameworthy.Dr. Munir Munshey
Except with their spouses _ those whom their right hands possess; because then, they are not blameworthy.Dr. Mohammad Tahir-ul-Qadri
Except from their wives or the female slaves they possess. So (in this) there is no blame on them.Dr. Kamal Omar
except unto their wives or ma-malakat-aimanuhum (the women who are given in guardianship of adult males as their wives under a document prepared by the Muslim state) ? then surely they are unblamed people.Talal A. Itani (new translation)
Except from their spouses or those living under their control, for then they are free of blame.Bilal Muhammad (2013 Edition)
Except with their spouses and those who their right hands possess, for they are not to be blamed,Maududi
except in regard to their spouses and those whom their right hands possess, for in regard to them they are not reproachable,(2013 Edition)
Except around their spouses or those maintained by their oaths, there is no blame.Bijan Moeinian
with their wives and the ones that God has approved for them.Faridul Haque
Except with their wives and the bondwomen in their possession, for there is no reproach on them.Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah
except from their wives and what their right hands own, for these they are not blameworthy.Maulana Muhammad Ali
Except in the presence of their mates or those whom their right hands possess -- for such surely are not to be blamed,Muhammad Ahmed - Samira
Except on (for) their spouses and what their rights owned/possessed (i.e. care-givers of the sick, elderly and disabled under contract), so then they are not blameworthy/blamed.Sher Ali
Except from their wives and from those whom their right hands possess; such indeed, are not to blame;Rashad Khalifa
(They have relations) only with their spouses, or what is legally theirs -Ahmed Raza Khan (Barelvi)
Except with their wives and the bondwomen in their possession, for there is no reproach on them.Amatul Rahman Omar
Except from their (free) wives or those (wives of theirs) whom their right hands own (- slave wives), for which they are not to blame.Muhsin Khan & Muhammad al-Hilali
Except with their wives and the (women slaves and captives) whom their right hands possess, for (then) they are not to be blamed,Non-Muslim and/or Orientalist works
Arthur John Arberry
save from their wives and what their right hands own, then not being blameworthyEdward Henry Palmer
except for their wives or the (slave girls) whom their right hands possess, for they are not to be blamed;George Sale
of women other than their wives, or the slaves which their right hands possess; -- for as to them they shall be blameless;John Medows Rodwell
(Save with their wives or the slaves whom their right hands have won, for there they shall be blameless;N J Dawood (draft)
save with their wives and slave?girls, for these are lawful for themPeace
-
Take a break muslims. I am disgusted by it and what made you believe otherwise? It is because it is an abnormality and not according to the design and we feel disgusted by the image of it.
Nevertheless I try to have empathy for those who were born this way or has it as a mental illness that they cannot help being homosexual.
I said that homosexuality is against the design and you know it, but the phenomenon undeniably occurs still and in which way it could be considered "natural". Of course the term "natural" can be slightly inaccurate and must be taken to the context, but it refers to a phenomenon which occurs biologically not in an unnatural way. It is difficult to say that an animal with a lesser mind can get a psychological disorder that they copulate with same sex partners, so the logical conclusion is that it is biological.
We can control certain abnormal behavior thanks to our developed brain, but we still suffer from the instincts, take the sex drive for example. Many people have trouble abstaining from certain behavior because of the instincts.
Peace
-
?Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power.?
Oscar Wilde -
Take a break muslims. I am disgusted by it and what made you believe otherwise? It is because it is an abnormality and not according to the design and we feel disgusted by the image of it.
Nevertheless I try to have empathy for those who were born this way or has it as a mental illness that they cannot help being homosexual.
I said that homosexuality is against the design and you know it, but the phenomenon undeniably occurs still and in which way it could be considered "natural". Of course the term "natural" can be slightly inaccurate and must be taken to the context, but it refers to a phenomenon which occurs biologically not in an unnatural way. It is difficult to say that an animal with a lesser mind can get a psychological disorder that they copulate with same sex partners, so the logical conclusion is that it is biological.
We can control certain abnormal behavior thanks to our developed brain, but we still suffer from the instincts, take the sex drive for example. Many people have trouble abstaining from certain behavior because of the instincts.
Peace
Salam
That's my point, and I believe it is "unnatural for the Deen of Islam" to misplace what have God intended it to be.
It is okay to be empathy but it is not the truth in Islam.
The truth is what in the Qur'an.
We cannot distort the rules simply because we feel empathy, right? Is it?
What is the logical connection between "empathy" and "truth"?
Peace.
-
Peace