What is the Qur'ans stance on homosexuality?
-
@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.
-
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.
I feel like you're grasping for straws. I'll leave you to read all the verses regarding this. The straightfoward interpretation is that homosexual acts are disapproved. Make note that we shouldn't be twisting the verses to suit our whims.
The verse you pasted refers to men with no sexual desire. These could be eunuchs or asexuals, and I would interpret homosexuals in there as well.
Furthermore, no one is saying that homosexual intercourse has its own specific punishment, but again, the straightforward interpretation leads us to believe that anyone who is caught by four witnesses having extramarital intercourse receives a number of lashes.
Allahu a'lim.
-
I think many are misinterpreting the story of Lut. Lets analyze what this verse means "you approach men with desire instead of women".
First lets identify these women (nisa). It's not hard to understand the women mentioned in this verse are referring to the daughters Lut offered for marriage to the people of Sodom. It clearly states the inhabitants refused this offer by Lut and were more interested in the men. It's not talking about all women, it's a reference to the two daughters of Lut. It's beyond doubt the nisa mentioned in this verse are referring to the only females mentioned in the verses leading to this one, Luts daughters.
Second lets identify the men (riyal) mentioned in this verse. Its easy to see the men mentioned in this verse are referring to the messengers/angels that were sent by God to Lut. God sent them to Lut as a sort of trojan horse. God knows the people of Sodom will try to take these angels from Lut which will in turn annihilate the city. All this is pretty clearly stated in the verses preceeding the one we are discussing. It's beyond doubt the riyal mentioned here are the messengers visiting Lut. This is proven by the earlier description of how the crowd approached on the messengers and this movement of the crowd towards the riyal gets repeated here. Who was the crowd approaching on and Lut felt unable to protect? The messengers.
Why did Lut offer his daughters to the people of Sodom? This is also explained. It's a peace offering. A way to resolve the taking of the angels from Lut. The people of Sodom were trying to take the messengers/angels away from Lut. Lut feels put to shame by this act as it is dishonourful (handing over messengers of God to the most sinful people in the world). Out of despair, or maybe even to prevent the annihilation of the city, Lut offers his daughters as alternative. Which gets refused and seals the faith of destruction of the entire city. The Quranic source tells us how Lut felt unable to protect them from a crowd that was approaching on them. It does not state what they are planning to do with them. This explains why Lut went to such desperate measures as offering his own daughters. Can you even imagine being so altruistic to protect something divine. This makes the story of Lut so beautiful. The traits of a prophet, a righteous man, offering his two own daughters in exchange to protect what is from God.
Why were the people of Sodom so interested in these messengers sent to Lut? We can only speculate since it is not mentioned. Traditional translations explain they wanted to rape them homosexually. There is no indication at all this is the case and it says a lot about the mind of the translator, not about the text. It's not unlikely the people of Sodom knew these visitors were angels and wanted their knowledge, power, use them for their own agenda. This is only speculation. But not more a speculation then insinuating they wanted to take the angels from Lut for sexual acts. Fact is when the crowd started approaching the messengers in a frenzy - instead of the two virgin daughters offered by Lut as compromise - to take them from him, they do not motivate why or what their objective is. They just state their desire to take them.
People who are so sure this verse involves any sexual act, should think about the different meanings of desire. Does me desiring an icecream imply a sexual act? Does me desiring knowledge involve a sexual act? Does me desiring company involve a sexual act? Of course it doesn't. Strange then, desiring to take men from someone implies homosexual rape isn't it? Unless one has a homophobic inclination to start with.
Summed up
"They wanted to take/were approaching on the riyal (angels/messengers) instead of accepting the Nisa (Luts daughters as a compromise)."
Im rather convinced this is the correct meaning, please check out the reptition of this story in the other chapter where the homosexual rape interpretation becomes totally illogical. The interpretation I elaborated here still is valid in the repitition and does not require some weird different translation as "highway robbery". The meaning is the same in both chapters.
The act that sealed their faith was rejecting the final desperate peace offer made by Lut. It's illogical to think their fate was sealed by what they they did to those messengers they took after seperation from Lut - as clearly it is not described in Quran. We can only speculate what they did to them but of course the homophobic mind of most translators already filled the gap with homosexual rape (because thats what homosexuals do). Lut offered two virgin daughters, prepared to hand them over to the most sinful people in the world to protect these angels from falling into the hands of sinners. It's irrelevant even what they were planning to use those angels for, even if they were planning to rape them homosexually, their fate had been sealed by rejecting Luts generous offer.
ps this is a quranist forum, has none of you detected this verse has been contaminated by hadith? dont you see the hadith translation fails to stand up in the repitition of the story where no desire is mentioned and it's often translated as highway robbery? Do people base themselves on Edip's QRT that has kept this homophobic hadith contamination intact just because Edip thinks homosexuals are abnormal? Kind of sad really. If you are still interpreting the story of Lut as a condemnation of homosexuality then that is your personal inclination. It's not in the objective text and I can back up this case even further to expose your personal homophobia that has no Quranic evidence whatsoever.
-
I seem unable to modify my earlier post. I thought it was lacking references so here goes
Identification of nisa subject in 781
The only nisa mentioned in 1177-80 and 1561-66 are the daughters of Lut. Making it clear Nisa in 781 refers to Luts daughters.
Identification of riyal subject in 781
The men/visitors are described as the messengers in 1177, 1567
1178, 1568 describes how they rushed towards them/the messengers and wanted to disgrace Lut "through them" and get offered Luts daughters in returnNotice how these verses describe a movement (rushing) wich gets repeated in 781 being 'approaching with desire'. Well that's what rushing is, it's approaching with desire.
Summed up the only riyal/men mentioned in the story of Lut in Quran are the messengers. The only nisa/women mentioned in the story of Lot in Quran are Luts daughters with the exception of Luts wife (which is singular). How can the subjects of riyal and nisa be anything else than the messengers and Luts daughters respectively?
26166 Refers again to the same choice Lut offered the people of Sodom. They rejected the wives he offered and were only interested in the messengers sent to Lut.
But the most interesting evidence of all can be found in 2928-31. Here we see the hadith translation utterly failing. 2929 repeats the accusation made in 781 and suddenly homosexual does not fit the arabic text anymore. So they change it to 'highway robbery' etc. Some translations even put 'highway robbery and desire for men', which is incredible because the verse does not even contain a word that expresses desire here. The verb used here means 'to cut off'. What were the people of Sodom "approaching" and trying to seperate from Lut? The messengers. It makes no sense at all the accusation in 2929 would suddenly be about highway robbery. The men they approach are the messengers, the subject they are trying to cut off are the messengers and thereby dishonouring Lut. You see what they did here? 781 speaks about approaching men for sexual acts and at the same time 2929 speaks about approaching men for robbery. You cant have both ways. It's a nice example of the liberties hadith-inspired translators use but they make mistakes and we can always trace back the lie they tried to implement.
My dear friends, Quran does not contradict and this hadith contamination has to go. Thank God for repeating one story multiple times so these fallacies in translation can be detected.
-
More evidence the verb used in 781 does not exactly mean approaching. It's used in other occurences in Quran. One example uses this for people drawn to magic. It's not just approaching someone, it's rushing to something that is out of this world. Are people sexually drawn to magic? I dont think so. The people of Sodom were drawn to Luts visitors like people were drawn to magic, like moths to the moon. The description of it in Quran is actually quite eloquent.