Understanding the story of Lot and homosexuality
-
IMPORTANT!
When Science is Context Three Questions Show
The Men of the Quranic Lot Story
Are Heterosexual men not Homosexual menIntroduction
Today, there are many studies showing sexual orientation is not environmentally influenced, but rather individuals are born with a sexual orientation.
See Parts I-IX Below
Applying these studies as an element of context within the Quranic Lot story, the story shows a condemnation of lustful homosexual acts of heterosexual men, and not a condemnation of homosexual acts of homosexual men. In other words, and the thesis of this short article, the men of the Quranic Lot story are heterosexual men not homosexual men. To support this thesis, I will share three commonsensical questions that must be asked about the Quranic Lot story when these studies become part of the story's context.
First Question
The first question that must be asked when these studies become part of the context is found in the Quran verse 781. The verse states,
". . . with lust you approach men instead of women . . ."
(Quran 781, M. Asad)
As seen, this verse uses ?instead of.? This usage shows the men of the Quranic Lot story are heterosexual men. How? Because the question that must be asked with science as context Can homosexual men approach women ?instead of? men?
Second Question
The second question that must be asked when these studies become part of the context is found in the Quran verse 1178. The verse states,
". . . Said "O my people! these daughters of mine they are purer for you ! . . ."
(Quran 1178, M. Asad)
As seen, this verse states that Lot offered his daughters to these men. This offering shows the men of the Quranic Lot story are heterosexual men. How? Because the question that must be asked with science as context Would Lot offer homosexual men his daughters?
Third Question
The third question that must be asked when these studies become part of the context is found in the Quran verse 26166. The verse states,
"keeping yourselves aloof from all the spouses whom your Sustainer has created for you? . . ."
(Quran 26166, M. Asad)
As seen, this verse states God created spouses for these men. This creating of spouses for these men shows the men of the Quranic Lot story are heterosexual men. How? Because the question that must be asked with science as context Would God create women for homosexual men?
Conclusion
When science is context, these three questions are enough to rightly question the long held belief that the Quranic Lot story is a condemnation of homosexual acts of homosexual men rather than a condemnation of lustful homosexual acts of heterosexual men.
Watch the videos and read.
The source
http//www.godists.com/articles/islam_when_science_is_context_three_questions_show_the_men_of_the_quranic_lot_story_are_heterosexual_men_not_homosexual_men -
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZhfIIYedfQ
-
Thank you for provide this )
-
You are welcome @Earthdom and @sushi1992.
-
To the OP
The science you talk about is deeply flawed and funded by those that thrive on lies and deception.
Quran condemns this kind of behaviour. The verses are clear.
-
Peace god1quran1
I don't think he meant to use the word science. He is however using logical arguments.
Yes. The verses are clear. It is clear that nowhere in the Quran is being Homosexual itself forbidden. The act of Homosexuality (i.e. engaging in homosexual intercourse) is not prohibited for Homosexuals. Rather, as the logic and questions given by the OP, the Quran suggests engaging in Homosexual acts if you are heterosexual is a great lewdness. What happened during the scenario of the story of Lut, is that it was a case of Same gender Rape (which still happens today) used as a scare/dominance tactic.Peace
Mino-taur
-
It is wrong to say people are born homosexual or that people are not born homosexuals, or orientation or whatever, because there are those who have a natural tendency and there others who do nto have and acquire it, be it in one sense or on another. Both things exists. The same as there are people who are more prude or less prude, more sexually active or les sexually active. People who are more curious and experimental in that kind of thing and people who are just "classic". People capable of enjoying with either sex and people uncapable of it.
People are not divided neatly in that kind of thing. It would be nice and comfortable if things were that way, and we could go on for ages expounding great theories that would solve everything, but the problem is reality is not that way and homos are born but also are made, just the same as heteros and bis and whatever one cares to think of.
We jsut have to face that sexuality is a domain where many deep problems end up. Or that many times sexuality itself is a problem for the person. In fact, life is a problem or a big chain of problems, why should sex not come with problems too? It does. Not for everybody, just as heart diseases do not happen to everybody, but for many people it is. What is self-deluding is to think that having problems is wrong in itself. Having problems is part of life.
Salaam
-
Today, there are many studies showing sexual orientation is not environmentally influenced, but rather individuals are born with a sexual orientation.
Being "born gay" is false, and has been shown by scientific studies.
Research the studies done on genetically identical twins, who later in life, one is homosexual, one heterosexual. This is very common.
Secondly, the story of Lot has been discussed in detail on this forum multiple times. I recommend reading such threads, e.g.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9602272.msg295319#msg295319 -
And those who guard their private parts <- ALL human beings have private parts, including homosexual
Except from their wives <- referring to "marriages", and "men"
or those their right hands possess
for indeed, they are not to be blamed
But whoever seeks beyond that
then they are the transgressors
(7029-31)Therefore . . .
Premise 1 The Qur'an says men must guard their "private parts", except from their wives
Premise 2 Gays are men and have "private parts"Therefore (rule) Gays must guard their "private parts", except from their wives
IF THEN ELSE.
IF gays are men
THEN gays must guard their private parts except from their wives
ELSE show an ayat that Allah sets them free from this obligation
END IF -
Gays
And those who guard their private parts <- ALL human beings have private parts, including homosexual
Except from their wives <- referring to "marriages", and "men"
or those their right hands possess
for indeed, they are not to be blamed(7029-31)
Salam,
Muslims.Suppose the gays say Allah has not dogmatically mentioned the right hand possessed are specifically females; it could be males too. In that case what is your enlightenment.
drfazl
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
And those who guard their private parts <- ALL human beings have private parts, including homosexual
Except from their wives <- referring to "marriages", and "men"
or those their right hands possess
for indeed, they are not to be blamed
But whoever seeks beyond that
then they are the transgressors
(7029-31)Therefore . . .
Premise 1 The Qur'an says men must guard their "private parts", except from their wives
Premise 2 Gays are men and have "private parts"Therefore (rule) Gays must guard their "private parts", except from their wives
IF THEN ELSE.
IF gays are men
THEN gays must guard their private parts except from their wives
ELSE show an ayat that Allah sets them free from this obligation
END IFNot so fast! The premises may be valid if 7030 is translated as spouses--maybe not so much when translated literally. The same word roots are used in other places, such as 6143...does "spouses" fit there? hmm
7029 And those who keep covered their private parts.
7030 Except around their spouses or those maintained by their oaths, there is no blame.
7031 Whoever seeks anything beyond this, they are the transgressors.6143 Eight in pairs from the lambs two, and from the goats two. Say "Is it the two males that He forbade or the two females, or what the wombs of the two females bore? Inform me if you are truthful!"
20131 And do not linger with your eyes on what We have bestowed upon some couples from them; the flower of the worldly life; so as to test them in it; and the provision of your Lord is better and more lasting.
3021 And from His signs is that He created for you mates from yourselves that you may reside with them, and He placed between you affection and mercy. In that are signs for a people who reflect.
When translated as "pairs" or "couples," the words make sense in all usages--and these translations do not necessarily exclude homosexuals. It is interesting to me that "two males" and "two females" are referred to in 6143--any possibility that these could be considered azwjin?
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
Suppose the gays say Allah has not dogmatically mentioned the right hand possessed are specifically females; it could be males too. In that case what is your enlightenment.
The Quran is not an encyclopedia and it only provides the substance or the main principle for determining legal issue.
A Book whose ayats
are perfectly constructed
and then demarcated
coming directly from One who is All-Wise, All-Aware.
111Therefore I believe we need reasoning from proper logical methodology, and this is where the "analogical reasoning" (Qiyas) and "critical thinking" (ijtihad) should be applied to derive the right principles from the Quran.
Therefore, I think we should look for further the rule relating to marrying the right hand possesses.
. . .
General Rule Only the prophet can marry with those of the right hand possesses. It is unlawful for the believers to marrry them.
O Prophet, indeed We have made LAWFUL TO YOU <- lawful vs. unlawful to you
(1) your wives to whom you have given their due compensation
(2) and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you <- subject matter
(3) and the daughters of your paternal uncles
(4) and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles
(5) and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you
(6) and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to marry her,only for you
excluding the believers. <- the prohibition
3350Exception Can marry those of the right hand possesses in this situation and if comply with the following conditions.
And whoever among you <- the situation, but "but to be patient is better for you" (see below)
(1) cannot the means
(2) to marry free, believing women(3)(+ for those who fears sin of adultery, see below)
THEN from
(1) those whom your right hands possess
(2) of believing slave girlsAnd Allah is most knowing about your faith. You are of one another.
So marry them <- the conditions for an exception to the general rule in 33.50
(3) with the permission of their people
(4) and give them their due compensation
(5) according to what is acceptable.
(6) chaste,
(7) neither those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly
(8 ) nor those who take lovers.BUT once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery,
THEN for them is
(1) half the punishment for free women.This is for him among you who fears sin <- refer to the above situation
but to be patient is better for youAnd Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
Allah wants to make clear to you <- rationale of this rule
and guide you to the practices of those before you
and to accept your repentance.
And Allah is Knowing and Wise
425-26Conclusion Would it be lawful to marry with the same sex from the right hand possess if it is restrictive and unlawful to do so with the female slaves? I believe the conclusion to allow for such marriages is very weak and unreasonable , unless. . someone can show a clear authority from the Quran it is allowed to do so.
-
When translated as "pairs" or "couples," the words make sense in all usages--and these translations do not necessarily exclude homosexuals. It is interesting to me that "two males" and "two females" are referred to in 6143--any possibility that these could be considered azwjin?
Firstly, if we allowed for such rules. . then there is no need for rules relating to marriages etc in the Quran. It will contradict many verses from the Quran and the whole Quran will sound unreasonable.
Secondly, the subject matter is "human being" and for marriages, we use "spouses" or "wives" (azwjihim, ْ.
I believe "pair" is specifically used when the subject matter is related to something other than human beings.
"Mates" is the general terms and specifically used for animals, and so as verse 6.143. . it is relating to sheeps, ie. animals.These are my views.
http//s10.postimg.org/q7yexo3k9/mates.png
. . .
Other translations, (7029-31)
Other Translations
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.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 them -
Greetings and Peace all group
My comments are in red.
Firstly, if we allowed for such rules. . then there is no need for rules relating to marriages etc in the Quran. It will contradict many verses from the Quran and the whole Quran will sound unreasonable.
Contradict the Qur'an, or contradict conventional understanding of the Qur'an? Is that such a bad thing?
Secondly, the subject matter is "human being" and for marriages, we use "spouses" or "wives" (azwjihim, ْ.
I understand that the entire Qur'an is for our instruction. It is reasonable that a word has the same meaning whenever it is used, isn't it?
I believe "pair" is specifically used when the subject matter is related to something other than human beings.
"Mates" is the general terms and specifically used for animals, and so as verse 6.143. . it is relating to sheeps, ie. animals.These are my views.
. . .
<snip>
What did the various translations have to say about 6143 or about 20131? 20131 is about humans, after all. They didn't say spouses or mates, did they...
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
Contradict the Qur'an, or contradict conventional understanding of the Qur'an? ) Is that such a bad thing?
I understand that the entire Qur'an is for our instruction. It is reasonable that a word has the same meaning whenever it is used, isn't it?
Unless you can prove that "marriage between same sex is in the Quran" . .
then it is contradicting the Quran, and accepted norms of human life and other living creatures (ie. of different sex etc). . .I believe the conclusion to allow for such marriages is very weak and unreasonable , unless. . someone can show a clear authority from the Quran it is allowed to do so.
and here is what I mean as "clear authority"
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606010.msg342131#msg342131
. . .
What did the various translations have to say about 6143 or about 20131? 20131 is about humans, after all. They didn't say spouses or mates, did they...
The verse in issue is verse (7029-31) and which related to the meaning of "wives" or "spouses" (azwjihim, ْ.
and sorry, I don't understand how these verses is related to verse (7029-31) and human beings. . .
eight mates - of the sheep, two and of the goats, two. Say, "Is it the two males He has forbidden or the two females or that which the wombs of the two females contain? Inform me with knowledge, if you should be truthful." (6143)
And do not extend your eyes toward that by which We have given enjoyment to categories of them, the splendor of worldly life by which We test them. And the provision of your Lord is better and more enduring. (20131)
whereas. . .
Secondly, the subject matter is "human being" and for marriages, we use "spouses" or "wives" (azwjihim, ْ.
I believe "pair" is specifically used when the subject matter is related to something other than human beings.
"Mates" is the general terms and specifically used for animals, and so as verse 6.143. . it is relating to sheeps, ie. animals. -
The Quran is not an encyclopedia and it only provides the substance or the main principle for determining legal issue.
A Book whose ayats
are perfectly constructed
and then demarcated
coming directly from One who is All-Wise, All-Aware.
111Therefore I believe we need reasoning from proper logical methodology, and this is where the "analogical reasoning" (Qiyas) and "critical thinking" (ijtihad) should be applied to derive the right principles from the Quran.
Therefore, I think we should look for further the rule relating to marrying the right hand possesses.
. . .
General Rule Only the prophet can marry with those of the right hand possesses. It is unlawful for the believers to marrry them.
Exception Can marry those of the right hand possesses in this situation and if comply with the following conditions.
Conclusion Would it be lawful to marry with the same sex from the right hand possess if it is restrictive and unlawful to do so with the female slaves? I believe the conclusion to allow for such marriages is very weak and unreasonable , unless. . someone can show a clear authority from the Quran it is allowed to do so.
Salam,
Muslims.May Allah be pleased with you
-
http//www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html
http//www.theguardian.com/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa
http//io9.com/5967426/scientists-confirm-that-homosexuality-is-not-genetic--but-it-arises-in-the-womb
http//www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html
Peace Wakas, Everyone,
Being "born gay" is false, and has been shown by scientific studies.
Research the studies done on genetically identical twins, who later in life, one is homosexual, one heterosexual. This is very common.
Being ?Born Gay? does not necessarily mean that it is due to one single Gene which makes you gay. Sexuality is more complex than to be defined by one gene. Very few things about the body and how the brain is structured and works are defined by just one gene. If you study Genetics or molecular Biology, this is one of the first things you will learn. Moreover, in the link I have provided at the start of my post gives a quick summary of some of the studies into biological basis for Homosexuality. In the one by Canadian reasearchers, it shows that it may not be caused by Genes at all, it is in part due to the increasing strength in the mothers immune response.
The second link is there just to show more evidence that there may be some type of genetic factor involved in the causation of homosexuality.
The third link is another example how Homosexuality is not purely Gene based. Genetics is so much more complicated than ?You have this Gene, therefore you will have yellow hair? etc.
The fourth link is there to show you that the study you mentioned is most probably an anomaly. Also the ?epi-marks? explanation, explains why one twin with the same genes as his brother did not turn out to be gay also. The straight twin obviously lacked the epigenetic modification which would lead to homosexuality.
In summary, we can conclude that there is some Biological basis for homosexuality, probably not genetic, but biological nonetheless. Therefore, being gay is Definitely not a simple Choice. If it was, when did you choose to be straight?
And thank you for the link to the Thread, I will read it when I have more time. (I'm currently studying for exams!). But because there is some Biological basis, and no clear condemnation of homosexuality (being attracted to the same sex) in the Quran, I believe that being Gay is ok according to the Quran. Simply put, Allah would not create Gay people when they cannot help it, and then condemn them for it. It's like making black people, and condemning them for being Black!
Peace everyone, I sincerely hope I haven't offended anyone with my post as I understand this is a sensitive subject. )
Mino-taur
-
Again this like going on forever over free will and predestination. Gets nowhere.
Because what it revolves around is just that. On the other hand, I am still surprised that people keep on and on on whether it is by choice or by birth and look for statistics and science and all that which is very nice. but the point is that just knowing the people, the real people one knows that there are some who have sex with their own sex by choice and others that have a "natural" tendency to it. There is no one and only one way of behaving homosexual or bisexual or heterosexual. Many today considered even by themselves homosexual are so by choice. And many heterosexual are also so by choice, they could well have a great time with somebody of their own sex. They simply do not allow themselves to do it, which is an intelligent choice. And choice may involve simply the reason why one would involve in sex at all.
As to whether it is wrong or not, it is up to each person to examine her or himself as to the motives why they would do something or other. The blanket no it is not wrong or yes it is wrong does not work even for "hetero". Your motives must be sound. It is not some crowd or some ulemas who will bring you to account but your own deep self who wants to go back to Divinity to whom you should answer.
None here need to say a word or to be convinced of anything as to what any other person does with her or his sex life, it is each real person who should respond to her or himself as to whether they are being faithful or just giving themselves the answer that makes their life more pleasant or more fashionable or whatever in spite of deep down not wanting to know further.
And that problem we all peopla have, be it with sex or be it with other things. The point with sex is that a whole life is conditioned very much by that choice and we should consider the extent to which it will affect us.
Regarding the Qur'an, my conclusion is that it leaves things in the shade and is not obssessed with sex "sins". Just as it has been used wrongly to "endorse" poligamy, when in fact in 4.3 it doe snto talk about it, it is also used in some parts to set sexual dictates where in fact it doe snot go into it.
The thing into which the Qur'an really goes into is the intruding into people intimacy and privacy. The Qur'an forbids us to pry in people's private life, to wanting to know what is of no concern to us. Respect for private life, that is it. Sexual life is private life. It is each person who should look into his own private life, not the bunch of society.
Marriage, since it is the source of new generations, has to be protected. That is something which has nothing to do with protecting as such a sexual relationship, which again, is private. But what is protected is the birth and upbringing of generations.
People of any sex should be able to contract cohabitation, just as people are able to contract anything else, and what they do inside their homes is no public affair. They may or may not do this or that. It is their business and the faithful should not go into the private affairs of other people.
Do I need to know whether two women with blood relationship or without it, who live together, engage in sex or not? I do not need at all such knowledge, and personally, unless they are friends or some relation to me I do not want to be trown to me any such knowledge. It is no business of mine and it does not serve any purpose. Just as I do not need to know whether such or such person masturbates or not.
Homosexual love is not the equivalent of heterosexual love. Wrong or right or in the middle, whether it deserves approval or not, it is not the equivalent. But everybody should be able to live with the persons of his or her choice with a proper contract. And what they do or do not do in private is strictly their own private affair. The sex of the persons does not change a thing. Be they of the same or of different sex, sex is private. It is of no concern to anybody else, except as regards the reproduction, which obviously, as a result is public, very public.
Salaam
