What is the Qur'ans stance on homosexuality?
-
I'm entirely unconvinced the verses about Lut have any reference to homosexuality at all. The translation of "approaching men out of desire" does not make sense to me in the story of Lut. First of all I dont think 'riyal' in that verse has been proven to mean exclusively men. It's entirely possible it can mean a group of people including women. Second, I'm not convinced ?ta?tuna? in that verse has any sexual connoation at all. Prove me wrong but looking at other occurences of these words in Quran, next to the coherence of the story of Lut, I'm pretty convinced Quran actually does not even mention homosexuality at all.
-
Sex is not necessarily out of attraction. Sex is very commonly used as an expression of power and as a means to exert power. That is what rape is, about power not about attraction. It is gross idiocy to say that when males rape women they do it out of attraction. Well, yes, attraction all right, but not to women, but to power and overpower.
Frankly the level of this discussion does not seem to me to make anybody any more enlightened about any question. I have seen much better debates on this matter in this forum. The lid on the debate on this thread was put on at the very beginning and woe to whoever dares lift it even a little.
But, so it should be, let us agree all "heterosexual" are exactly alike and the same and all "homosexuals" are exactly alike and the same. They are not attracted to this or that because they are not attracted to this or that and that explains everything to everybody's satisfaction. As a concession if everything does not fit as it should, a category of bisexuals can be contemplated to use as a joker, but don't wander beyond.
Salaam
-
@huruf Those maybe your rules. I just dont find them in Quran. See my previous post for why. Seems like the homophobic brainwashing caused by ahadith is still damaging some on this forum.
Edit just checked Edip's QRT and it has the same homophobic translation. I should contact Edip to urge him to research the translation he has put in there.
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
My comments are in red.
Peace Abdul-Hadi,
<snip>
Adultery is, however, by state law in the Western world not regarded as a crime, so there is no way you can legally punish someone for doing adultery. It was decriminalized many years ago in most developed countries. Thus punishing someone for adultery is literally taking the law into your own hands, which is a crime in itself. Adultery is hence an immoral action and a shame, but not on criminal level so that you can punish someone. Adultery is still considered a very foul and distasteful act and the person is often punished indirectly by being regarded a person of low standard by people who have not fallen away from God completely.
Adultery is no longer criminalized under state law, however...in some states, an aggrieved spouse can sue for alienation of affection. Also, under the UCMJ (military), adultery is still criminal.
<snip>
But please do not involve punishments for immorality and zina into this discussion. It is just that path Satan wants us to take, to bring the law into our own hands because we detest this phenomenon with homosexuality. So many women have been stoned to death already in history and now it is the gays' turn?
The actual word used means immorality (not homosexuality), but what I was trying to convey was without 4 witnesses, a "righteous" ) person can't apply lashes or any other punishment. There is not much chance of having 4 witnesses.
Be whole
@recite I agree that we should not make claims that aren't true; the Qur'an does not state that homosexual acts are okay, so we should not say that the Qur'an states that. On the other hand, the Qur'an does not state the opposite. In any case, even if homosexual acts are allowed, this does not mean that promiscuity or lustful acts are encouraged.
May ALLAH see fit to Guide all seekers.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
@huruf Those maybe your rules. I just dont find them in Quran. See my previous post for why. Seems like the homophobic brainwashing caused by ahadith is still damaging some on this forum.
Edit just checked Edip's QRT and it has the same homophobic translation. I should contact Edip to urge him to research the translation he has put in there.
What are you talking about? What rules have I set or attempted to set? That I can recollect I have not done that and nothing further from my mind that setting rules for anybody.
Please if you say I have, quote, not just go and state that I have set rules anythere. Quote those rules you say I have set.
I think you seem to be answering to some preconception you have as to what I may want to say or not. But I am not guilty of what you think but if of anything, of what I say myself. That is, again, please quote and don't throw happily I do not know what about hadith. That is very comfortable when you want to silence somebody to throw on him or her the hadith stuff.
Please quote and then, at least, if you are right, I may know what you are talking about. As it is, I don't have the slightest idea and
"Seems like the homophobic brainwashing caused by ahadith is still damaging some on this forum."
addressed to me it is not proper debate but maligning a person. Not that I give a damn that you or anybody else maligns me as much as they care to, but so you know that to throw such accusations it would be nice if there was a quote.
Salaam
-
As a concession if everything does not fit as it should, a category of bisexuals can be contemplated to use as a joker, but don't wander beyond.
Those are your rules. They can not be backed up with Quran. As I showed in the previous post it's very questionable Quran mentions homosexuality at all. It's a wrong translation of 781. I beg everyone trusting the hadith-based, homophobic translation to prove to me that verse is about homosexuality at all. In that regard, I'm not condemning anyone personally but I'm shocked to see on this forum the damage of hadith translations is still influencing and misguiding us even here.
This is no small matter either. The homophobic and wrong translation of that verse is fueling people to hate/condemn others based on their sexual preference which is a violation of human rights. Even that logic alone should tell everyone to properly research that translation by themselves.
-
I have been researching on this for a while now. Note that I am straight. The thing is that since I live in California I meet many of those homosexual people. They are in my school. They are at work. They are everywhere. And with all honesty, I do not think they can ever be straight. When I read the verses about sodom and gomorrah I feel as if Allah's anger was directed towards straight men who went homosexual just for indulgence. This is the hint 'In preference to women, you satisfy your lust with men.' Homosexuals have no interest in opposite sex. They just can't do it.
Allah confirms of such men in the verse below
"And tell the believing women to reduce of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which appears thereof and to wrap their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire"2431Since Allah does not give us instructions on how to treat homosexuals I think we should just let them be what they are. How can we take decisions for them when Allah has made them as such?
I agree with you.
That's my understanding, too.Peace
-
I think I shouldnt bother reaching out to Edip to get the translation of 781 corrected. I found this article on the 19.org website http//19.org/blog/homophobia-phobia/
It clearly shows the homophobic nature of Edip and why he kept that hadith translation in there (QRT). For Edip bestiality, incest, pedophilia are equal to homosexuality even though Quran clearly gives us rules on all those but does not mention homosexuality at all.
For the record, I'm heterosexual as well. I'm just shocked to find out one of my idols in the Quranist movement has these kind of beliefs. How can he be blind this is violating human rights and giving a free ticket to gay bashing for anyone interested even if they are muslim?
Shame on you Edip. The same practices you accuse the hadith-followers of, you are committing yourself in the translation of 781. You kept the hadith translation intact only because it doesnt conflict your personal homophobic feelings. Considering to leave this forum as it is affiliated with Edip. I'll guess I'll study my Quran alone. Disgusted and disillusioned.
-
Those are your rules. They can not be backed up with Quran. As I showed in the previous post it's very questionable Quran mentions homosexuality at all. It's a wrong translation of 781. I beg everyone trusting the hadith-based, homophobic translation to prove to me that verse is about homosexuality at all. In that regard, I'm not condemning anyone personally but I'm shocked to see on this forum the damage of hadith translations is still influencing and misguiding us even here.
This is no small matter either. The homophobic and wrong translation of that verse is fueling people to hate/condemn others based on their sexual preference which is a violation of human rights. Even that logic alone should tell everyone to properly research that translation by themselves.
No man, those are not my rules, what I am saying is what it transires from what has been written in this thread, of course it is said with certain sarcasm, but those are not my rules but the rules that I find are being followed by several of the writers in this thread. So you have completely misunderstood my message. Completely. And it confirms me in my appreciation that it is useless to write anything in this thread.
Salaamk
-
I think I shouldnt bother reaching out to Edip to get the translation of 781 corrected. I found this article on the 19.org website http//19.org/blog/homophobia-phobia/
It clearly shows the homophobic nature of Edip and why he kept that hadith translation in there (QRT). For Edip bestiality, incest, pedophilia are equal to homosexuality even though Quran clearly gives us rules on all those but does not mention homosexuality at all.
For the record, I'm heterosexual as well. I'm just shocked to find out one of my idols in the Quranist movement has these kind of beliefs. How can he be blind this is violating human rights and giving a free ticket to gay bashing for anyone interested even if they are muslim?
Shame on you Edip. The same practices you accuse the hadith-followers of, you are committing yourself in the translation of 781. You kept the hadith translation intact only because it doesnt conflict your personal homophobic feelings. Considering to leave this forum as it is affiliated with Edip. I'll guess I'll study my Quran alone. Disgusted and disillusioned.
Some men who really hate homosexuals are hidden gay police
-
Peace runninglikezebras,
I'm entirely unconvinced the verses about Lut have any reference to homosexuality at all. The translation of "approaching men out of desire" does not make sense to me in the story of Lut. First of all I dont think 'riyal' in that verse has been proven to mean exclusively men. It's entirely possible it can mean a group of people including women. Second, I'm not convinced ?ta?tuna? in that verse has any sexual connoation at all. Prove me wrong but looking at other occurences of these words in Quran, next to the coherence of the story of Lut, I'm pretty convinced Quran actually does not even mention homosexuality at all.
You may be on the right track. I have current theories I have not yet revealed to the public, but they indicate that the word riyal is not exclusively but rather something like "individuals" or men (genderless) and nisa is even so not women but it means family. So that you approach the men (genderless) instead of your families. I was not going to say this yet, but it may be worth keeping in mind.
Be whole
-
Can those words be fixed?
Looks like those are useful information, but it seems that reading them with such arrangement make me a bit dizzy... @__@
Salm.
Harmony be upon you sister,
Errmm... not now afterwards. But try to filter the red highlighted text. Sorry. It was much work already.
Be whole
-
781 has the same incorrect hadith inspired and homophobic translation on this website. I would love to see it corrected. It's not a matter of speculation. The current translation does totally not hold up to scrutiny.
-
Peace runninglikezebras,
If I could choose and make a translation out of the words it would say something like this
781 ?You are approaching the people out of desire instead of the families! Indeed, you are a transgressing people.?
Be whole
-
I think that translation does the original text way more justice. In the context of 781 it is impossible only men are adressed as in the previous verses the subject is a whole society including men and women. The same verse is repeated elsewhere, no doubt that one is still contaminated as well.
-
Peace runninglikezebras,
If you repeatedly translate a word incorrectly then of course the whole narration falter.
Be whole
-
Some men who really hate homosexuals are hidden gay police
Apparently, I often read such statement/comment (similar statement/comment like what I quoted above).
Personally, I think it is vile statement, and such statement is clearly unfair.
Be careful, it's a big accusation.
Looks like some people often say such statement by lightly,
whereas, if the statement is brought to God's Court, perhaps it's not something with a light responsibility.
I suggest you to think carefully if next time you want to write/say such statement/comment.
Salm.
-
I distance myself from that comment. It was uncalled for. I do still stand with my statement that Edip is taking huge responsibilty when he kept that hadith contaminated translation in his QRT just because it suits his personal homophobic inclination. I would not want to be in his shoes.
-
Was listening to the radio today, and a person was narrating how he had changed opinion about homosexuality. He said that there was one idea that he had heard from a famous actor, and this idea changed his perception. The ideas was that if two people (in this case of the same gender) loves each other, how can this possibly be bad/wrong/evil?
There seems to be so much focus on sex when it comes to homosexuality, both by homophobics but also among homosexuals. But isn't it love that is the whole essence of the attraction? Yes, the human being was created with two genders, and was designed for having sex in order to procreate, but for a couple (hetero or homo) to come together, love is the thing the does it (unless we're talking about just simply sleeping around, which is another topic altogether).
Just wanted to share this idea, because I never thought about it much at all How can love ever be wrong? (And please, I'm not talking about love for money etc... so let's not play silly word games)
Anyhow, I think it's worth a thought or two. Personally I cannot take any particular stand on homosexuality, except that all human beings are equally much worth, and we should be very careful when judging others, and God knows what we don't know.
Peace
-
Your quote does not suggest that the people of Lut were actually attracted to women. Here, "in preference to" means "instead of"
Allah said his Quran is detailed. If he wanted to point the verse at real homosexuals he would have said "I condemn homosexuals because they do not force themselves to be attracted to women". He could have also said "men with no physical desire for women". He already used that line in one Surah. I pasted the verse. When he said instead of women, he made it clear that the men he was talking about were straight, but they chose the unnatural way by rejecting women for men. The idea of lust to me is one night stand which is punishable as stated in Quran. It is currently applied to sexual relationships of unmarried men and women.
As I said earlier, since Allah hasn't given anything on how to treat them we can't at this moment decide whether homosexuality is truly a sin. Just letting you know that I am talking about eunuchs.