Recent Legalization of Homosexual Marriage in USA
-
26165 speaks of atatna (do you approach) l-dhuk'rna (the males) mina (among) l-lamna (the worlds). The verb atatuna has many occurences and forms in Quran. Fact not one of them expresses sexual desire.
Clearly the verb used here describes a movement. If we look at 1178 we find the crowd was rushing towards Lut and the Messengers. The verb used here is yuh'rana (rushing, approaching with desire).781 and 2755 again uses the verb latatna (to approach) and l-rijla, this time combined with the noun shahwatan (with desire). The verb here again is in lign with 1178 describing the rushing of the crowd.
Other occurences in Quran of the word shahwatan never explicitly define the meaning as explicitly sexual. In contrary, it refers to any kind of desire. Eg 314 uses this word to describe desiring women and sons, gold and silver, horses, cattle and tilled land.
The riyal again, are The messengers, as 1178 clarifies, the crowd was rushing/approaching with desire Lut and the Messengers. This is further validated by 26160 which clearly states the riyal the crowd wanted to deny Lut, were indeed Gods Messengers.The males are the messengers, you dufus.
Peace
-
Peace,
A study of nature actually forced me to rethink what is normal. That's why I shifted position.
Thanks,
AdleyInteresting. It was someone from the forum that forced me to rethink quite a while back, especially regarding transgender, which is complex to say the least. I'm in support of such for various reasons, we've had some good discussions over the years. However, I'm envious of your study group damn it, I want in too
-
The point I'm making is sexuality is not mentioned in Lot. You are walking into a trap when you project your personal ideas of abomination into the quranic fahisha. The quranic fahisha does not speak about any sins based on sexual preference. If you think it does then you are following your own values, confusing those with the definitions provided in Quran.
Peace
-
The point I'm making is sexuality is not mentioned in Lot. You are walking into a trap when you project your personal ideas of abomination into the quranic fahisha. The quranic fahisha does not speak about any sins based on sexual preference. If you think it does then you are following your own values, confusing those with the definitions provided in Quran.
Then, what does QA denote (in its 17 occurrences in the Quran)?
-
Unseemly, inappropriate or to do something foul appear to be appropriate definitions.
-
Good evening everyone,
First of all, the Qur'an mentions something that has not been seen before. Obviously, homosexuality has a long history, so this pfrase has to mean something else.
I also like to look into nature (and also history of mankind) if something is unclear. Following this, one can see that heterosexuality is the norm (otherwise no reproduction), but homosexuality has always appeared and in most cases accepted in some way. Concerning marriage, maybe this has to be redefined, considering the different aspects of people living together a caring relationship between two people e.g. when it comes to the question of who has the right to visit and decide in case of cricial illness of one of them; the aspect of growing children together when it comes to financial matter or adoption or custody; and in my opinion, the sexual aspect should not be matter of the state at all.The other issue that was mentioned transsexuality. I think this is difficult. If you say (as many ranssexuals do) "nature has erred" that would mean God has erred, which I cannot accept. In my opinion, the solution for people not feeling good in their body is not operation but lies within the concept of gender. That men have to be tough and women have to be soft and beautiful. So let the men be soft and care for their beauty and still be men; maybe then they would feel beter in their bodies.
-
Hi Reee,
I think the fahisha in the story of Lot is quite simple. God sends messengers to Lot. The crowd wants these messengers for themselves, taking them away from Lot. Lot offers a compromise by offering his daughters, so they would leave the messengers be. The peace offer gets rejected.
Imagine, Djibril would have been taken away from Muhammad by an unworthy mob. It's by itself an abomination that has not been seen before.
The story is remarkably interesting because God knows the fahisha would happen and the messengers are willingly going with the crowd as a trojan horse, leading to the entire destruction of the city eventually.
It is Lot who does not know Gods bigger plan.
Peace
-
A question was suddenly directed at you, in order to examine your opinion (from a quranic perspective)!
I would appreciate if you find an answer to my question (without resorting to fallacies).
What does QA denote (in its 17 occurrences in the Quran)?
SLM
-
First of all, the Qur'an mentions something that has not been seen before. Obviously, homosexuality has a long history, so this pfrase has to mean something else. ?
Since Lut did not live at the same time when the Qur'an was revealed, then how do we know for sure that homosexuality ever done on the earth before the time of Lut?
-
I think the fahisha in the story of Lot is quite simple. God sends messengers to Lot. The crowd wants these messengers for themselves, taking them away from Lot.
Since prophet Lut himself was a messenger at that time, then why they want to take the guests of Lut, why?
What for? Why not they take Lut instead?
-
Since Lut did not live at the same time when the Qur'an was revealed, then how do we know for sure that homosexuality ever done on the earth before the time of Lut?
Hard to ask illogical people to be logical, so instead, let em be gay! lol
-
A question was suddenly directed at you, in order to examine your opinion (from a quranic perspective)!
I would appreciate if you find an answer to my question (without resorting to fallacies).
SLM
As per 6151 polytheism, disrespecting parents, infanticide, murder.
Peace
-
Since prophet Lut himself was a messenger at that time, then why they want to take the guests of Lut, why?
What for? Why not they take Lut instead?
Quran doesn't tell us why the crowd was fascinated and drawn to the messengers. More than likely they were special in some way or the other eg appearance, speech etc.
Peace
-
Hard to ask illogical people to be logical, so instead, let em be gay! lol
Please point out where I'm being illogical. I'm illogical for not believing the story of Lot is about homosexual rape while there is not even a hint towards anything sexual in the quranic text? You can disapprove of equal LBGT rights all you want, I don't even care about that part. It's where you attribute such rules to God that angers me.
Just looking at animal and plant life should tell you a God did not design a world in which heterosexuality is the only format. In nature we see androgyny, hermaphrodites, unisexualism etc etc...
I think the burden is upon you and others here to prove the story of Lot has even ONE word used in another occurrence related to sexuality.
Peace
-
Salaam,
My personal belief is that the act of homosexuality is not compatible with the Qur'an. Having homosexual tendency is not a sin, unless acted upon (which will be tough - most people are born with sexual urges).
Yes, some people are 'born' with homosexual preference, but that does not necessarily make it natural . Say, some have sexual fixation on animals, some are sexually attracted to prepubescent children - and that does not make it natural and acceptable.
Regarding homosexual 'marriage', I would much prefer that it is called 'civil union' and not marriage. I have to accept that homosexuality exists and I can do nothing to change it. They will still be having sex, whether or not they are legally married. What I just don't want to happen is, that with the legalisation of homosexual marriage, religious authorities (e.g. imams, priests, monks, etc) are forced to marry homosexuals against their will or they will be charged for discrimination.
Now that definition of 'marriage' has been altered, where will it stop? If all it takes is for people to love each other, then some may demand legalization for incestuous relationship, or paedophilic one. What makes homosexuality OK, but not incest or paedophilia? After all, it is about 'equal rights'.
That being said, I hold no hatred against homosexuals (as individuals). Ultimately people are responsible for their own action and God will be the judge. But people need to stop crying 'homophobia!' towards people who do not approve of homosexual marriage (I have my own belief, thank you very much).
-
Salaam,
My personal belief is that the act of homosexuality is not compatible with the Qur'an. Having homosexual tendency is not a sin, unless acted upon (which will be tough - most people are born with sexual urges).
Yes, some people are 'born' with homosexual preference, but that does not necessarily make it natural . Say, some have sexual fixation on animals, some are sexually attracted to prepubescent children - and that does not make it natural and acceptable.
Regarding homosexual 'marriage', I would much prefer that it is called 'civil union' and not marriage. I have to accept that homosexuality exists and I can do nothing to change it. They will still be having sex, whether or not they are legally married. What I just don't want to happen is, that with the legalisation of homosexual marriage, religious authorities (e.g. imams, priests, monks, etc) are forced to marry homosexuals against their will or they will be charged for discrimination.
Now that definition of 'marriage' has been altered, where will it stop? If all it takes is for people to love each other, then some may demand legalization for incestuous relationship, or paedophilic one. What makes homosexuality OK, but not incest or paedophilia? After all, it is about 'equal rights'.
That being said, I hold no hatred against homosexuals (as individuals). Ultimately people are responsible for their own action and God will be the judge. But people need to stop crying 'homophobia!' towards people who do not approve of homosexual marriage (I have my own belief, thank you very much).
If promoting inequality and discrimination based on solely a sexual preference is part of your faith I will keep calling you people for what you are. Oppressors. The definition of marriage is not changed by homosexual marriage. The meaning of marriage is still the same a bond for life with a partner witnessed by God.
Incest and paedophelia are explicitly forbidden in Quran. Homosexuality is not.
Peace
-
Please point out where I'm being illogical. I'm illogical for not believing the story of Lot is about homosexual rape while there is not even a hint towards anything sexual in the quranic text? You can disapprove of equal LBGT rights all you want, I don't even care about that part. It's where you attribute such rules to God that angers me.
Just looking at animal and plant life should tell you a God did not design a world in which heterosexuality is the only format. In nature we see androgyny, hermaphrodites, unisexualism etc etc...
I think the burden is upon you and others here to prove the story of Lot has even ONE word used in another occurrence related to sexuality.
Peace
I WAS NOT CALLING YOU ILLOGICAL, I WAS SAYING ILLOGICAL PEOPLE, NOT YOU. For goodness sakes, I'm sick of being misunderstood constantly, its annoying as heck!
You are not to my knowledge a homosexual, nor are you illogical, and I wasn't saying that to you, I was saying illogical people, a specific category, not you.
I was talking about JavaLatte trying to talk to and explain to people but finding that "reasoning" with people is a practically pointless effort, and I was saying "let em be gay" meaning freedom for homosexuals. Then you popped up thinking I was calling you illogical! I wasn't!
My comments were about her logical statement "Since Lut did not live at the same time when the Qur'an was revealed, then how do we know for sure that homosexuality ever done on the earth before the time of Lut?"
That was logical thinking. That is all I was talking about.
"How do we know for sure homosexuality was ever done on Earth before the time of Lut" is just logical skepticism, I was approving of that but knowing that people don't even listen to sense like that.
It had nothing to do with calling you illogical or anything to do with you AT ALL. This is why its so frustrating that you pop out of nowhere taking offense when I wasn't even talking TO YOU or ABOUT YOU or anything even related to anything except that she made a logical statement and joking about how logic doesn't seem to apply to people much.
NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. So don't get offended. It didn't have anything to do with much at all pertaining to what you are saying and you were not even part of what I was talking about.