Homosexuality LGBTQI and the deen
-
There is no difference between any zekar or zakar, the root is .
What do you base your claim about zekar and zakar on then? is pronounced the same no matter what kind of invented diacritical markers added to it.
You and your people have the faulty interpretation and not me.
-
There is no difference between any zekar or zakar, the root is .
in that case refer what waks ask you... about rooting
for me its a clear difference and i can see it clearly ... (sajud) rooting and masjid from same root is a good start...for begginers
You and your people have the faulty interpretation and not me.
ok thats another thing , but its not the answer ...
i repeat it once more .. i hate when i need to repeat my questions you was right people are behaving like primary kids in this thread... i agree with you on this..question is , what do you think about secterian interpretion is in favor of homosex or no?
-
Meem is prefixing Sejid, the root is still Siin-Jiim-Dal.
You are not answering my reply to my input from day one except rejection based without a valid counter-argument.
You are still not dealing with my question on and explaining to me how one same root can be mind, remember and male at the same time. You need a rational argument for that one or any intelligent person could find the whole Arabic language as your friends the medieval clerics invented as unintelligible. Instead of addressing my question you circumventing my question by saying how lost I am which is not relevant to the subject.
And yes, it is quite repetitive, and this is why I have previously also stopped responding after a few rounds because it is just circular reasoning, i.e. the discussion is not allowed to develop, and that is because the questions still stand unaddressed.
Homosexuality is breaking the directive of Moses on the parameter about vain sex (usually translated illicit sex). This is however in return misinterpreted as not to include marital intercourse, but all kinds of activation of the sex drive is included in the rule. Jesus did clarify it by saying even looking upon a woman with desire is wrong and against this rule.
On the other hand all directives are mostly misinterpreted and it is the root cause as to why someone transgresses which is the point.
Why you want to look upon a woman is because of the sex drive. Why you would like to defeat (kill) a person is because of your drive for domination. Why you would like to not to care for your neighbor like yourself is because you by instinct care for yourself the most. And then et cetera.
Be well
Amenuel -
There is just 10 laws of God and there will always be. There is no specific anti-gay law, but obviously it can be put under the heading of "vain sex" if the homosexual couple is interested in that. The decree will stand until the end of time.
People should watch themselves on not becoming aroused at all instead or at minimum, not being so bodily in their mind.
-
thanx for your answer.. i can understand you also think secterian interpretation is against homosex whatever heading it comes with dosent make any difference ... peace
-
Bender,
Thanks for clarifying. I believe that gives us enough info to test your theory. It seems MofF also agrees with you, so perhaps he too will provide answers.
You may recall in the past you and mmkhan claimed (without evidence) there were no synonyms in Quran, and when I produced one simple example, both of you were stumped and could not explain any difference between the words. Reference thread.
You have a good memory.
I don't understand why you insist I am claiming something.
If you do not agree with my approach then you are totally free to do it your way.
I can not prove that my method is the correct method just like you can not prove yours is the correct one.
I am just following what I think is better.Your simple example in that thread did not prove your approach nor did it disprove my approach in case you thought so.
1131
1141
Are the red words synonyms?
btw this example of me is of course not a proof that there are no synonyms in the quran, it's just an example.
I am just against such ideas because I think such ideas are only bringing more and more confusions while I think the quran should be clear if it is indeed the book I think it is.Let's move onto your claim(s) in this thread. Please answer the following questions
-
what is the root concept of Daad-Ra-Ba AND the meaning of the first form verb DaRaBa
Root http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=Drb -
what is the root concept of Ra-Alif/Hamzeh-Siin AND the meaning of the word 'raas'
Root http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=rAs -
what is the root concept of Siin-Jiim-Dal AND the meaning of the word 'masjid'
Root http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=sjd -
what is the root concept of Ya-Dal-Ya AND the meaning of the word 'yad'
Root http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=ydy
Once you provide the answers we will test them in Quran occurrences. If others have better test examples, feel free to cite them.
How exactly are my answers to these questions going to prove or disprove anything?
Lets say I take for "daraba" "violence" as root concept and first form is "beating" then what? -
-
o
well let me know where i insult any women...
Ok, here you go
"and about homosexulty you already send the quote which is not answer by anyone yet apart from screaming like a loser... that what clearly show someone defeat when they start screaming or giving up on anything..."hmm so according to your understanding...
interpretation should be like this..
why do you approach the foot(with lust) instead of women.. indeed you are ignorant people
orwhy do you approach foot(footjob) instead of women , indeed you are intelligent people
tafseer by bender this verse indicates the invention of footjoob rotfl rotfl rotfl rotflthis boy is funny ... i love his interpreatation he will bring a change in free minds by his reasonings and interpreatation...
look i already know it will be faulty interpretation so i already guessed it... aww i think my prediction was correct ... yay
anyway everybody have a right to beleive and understand what they want... handshake
it looks like wakas also raise some points lets see where the wind will blow..
i think we missed your point and you missed your homework... or you are careless enough to check the previous reference... but this time i will make sure i will take you to the tour of words... lol look word tour and world tour just one letter difference make it so big and small... hmm
26165
26165 "Are you attracted to the males of the worlds?"
incase if you have some issues with the meanings of males...
1697
1697 Whoever does good works, whether male or female, and is a believer, We will give him a good life and We will reward them their dues with the best of what they used to do.
incase if you you are looking for arabic of foot ...
1694
1694 And do not use your oaths as a means of deception between you, that a foot will slip after it has been made firm, and you will taste the evil of turning away from the path of God, and you will have a great retribution.
you always welcome again to try foot, hand, or anything with this word ( )
interestingly this word we can methphorically use for move/advancement.. same like a move in chess !
peace.. peace
I guess I have no useful moves anymore, so I think it's time for me to resign this game.
Congrats handshake -
Your simple example in that thread did not prove your approach nor did it dissaprove my approach in case you thought so.
I never thought so and I even explicitly said this in the very link I referenced.
I can not prove that my method is the correct method just like you can not prove yours is the correct one.
I disagree. We can easily test methods to see which ones are consistent, lead to logical/practical results, and perhaps even falsify some. Methods (for various things) are tested all the time.
Are the red words synonyms?
No.
btw this example of me is of course not a proof that there are no synonyms in the quran, it's just an example.
I agree, your example is irrelevant and proves nothing.
I am just against such ideas because I think such ideas are only bringing more and more confusions while I think the quran should be clear if it is indeed the book I think it is.
Have you even considered the potential benefits of synonyms (in terms of clarifying)?
How exactly are my answers to these questions going to prove or disprove anything?
Lets say I take for "daraba" "violence" as root concept and first form is "beating" then what?It's real simple, and I already implied how, we insert "beating" into the Quran occurrences and whenever it results in an illogical/impractical/contradiction (if any) I ask you to explain it. If you cant make it make sense your method fails.
Of course there will be an element of subjectivity to it, e.g. you may think your translation of a certain verse makes sense, whereas I do not. That's fine, but evidence needs to be put on the table first before we can test/decide anything.
If you are ready to put the results on the table, let's begin. Please confirm your answers for all 4, or if you want, we can do one at a time. Please confirm your actual understanding of the root DRB and verb DaRaBa.
MofF has already ran away, so it's just you.
-
Ok, here you go
"and about homosexulty you already send the quote which is not answer by anyone yet apart from screaming like a loser... that what clearly show someone defeat when they start screaming or giving up on anything..."brother bender in that case , you must have to look this ... why i use red thingie... people due to their comments make me to write this... you can always verify the insults ...
No se le pueden pedir peras al olmo. ( i dnt know what that really means)
It is useless to attempt to reason or teach them grammar. They are impervious and they are not interested because women simple are not there nor, what is mor eimportant, SHOULD BE there.
I do not know why anybody still bothers to indulge talking to those peoples. If once they do no take any notice of what is explained to them, it is a waste of time to even bother taking any further notice of such contrived stupidity. For them a condition for being muslim is to be thouroughly stupid and brainless. Ignore them is the most charitable attitude towards and specially towards oneself.
handshake
-
Peace all,
Notwithstanding my arguments presented above, this matter, as I stated above, is a judgement that must be made by each person who is affected by, or who is inclined to, homosexuality.
It is a judgement that must be made after the assessment of the relevant verses of the Quran.
Then, we shall all be raised after death, brought before God, and made to answer for our judgement.
Peace!
-
I never thought so and I even explicitly said this in the very link I referenced.
I thought I read something else there...
No.
I agree, your example is irrelevant and proves nothing.
Ok, then you really lost me now.
I thought when you brought up synonyms and even a link to an old thread were you gave the next example, you wanted to discuss synonyms.- idrib bi AAasaka al hajara fa infajarat min hu
- idrib bi AAasaka al hajara fa inbajasat min hu
But I guess I am wrong.
So before I make the same mistake, can you please clarify why you were talking about synonyms and homonyms and why the reference to a 4 years old thread if that was not what you wanted to discuss?
I disagree. We can easily test methods to see which ones are consistent, lead to logical/practical results, and perhaps even falsify some. Methods (for various things) are tested all the time.
I welcome every feedback or correction
Have you even considered the potential benefits of synonyms (in terms of clarifying)?
Well the potential "benefits" are exactly the reason why I am against synonyms.
It's real simple, and I already implied how, we insert "beating" into the Quran occurrences and whenever it results in an illogical/impractical/contradiction (if any) I ask you to explain it. If you cant make it make sense your method fails.
Not my method fails but my understanding of that word fails.
And this is what I am doing for years, see if undersatnding x fits everywhere, if not then I try to come up with a better defintion.
A loooooooooooot of defintions failed by this method but not the method itself.Of course there will be an element of subjectivity to it, e.g. you may think your translation of a certain verse makes sense, whereas I do not. That's fine, but evidence needs to be put on the table first before we can test/decide anything.
yes this is testing defintions not methods.
If you are ready to put the results on the table, let's begin. Please confirm your answers for all 4, or if you want, we can do one at a time. Please confirm your actual understanding of the root DRB and verb DaRaBa.
I seriously do not get the point of this, except if you want to see if my understanding of a particular word is consistent everywhere or not.
I admit that my approach does not bring a lot of results, this means that I have for a loooooooooooooot of words/verses no clue, but I am confident that this is the way to go as I believe that this approach will lead to a better understanding.
Allowing homonyms and synonyms will for sure bring a lot of results, but it allows also a lot of different interpretations, and I am confident that this is the wrong approach.MofF has already ran away, so it's just you.
I guess he is wiser than me.
Is every discussion here a game of thrones?
-
I guess he is wiser than me.
Is every discussion here a game of thrones?
The point is that I have tried before, but the way I perceive it the tone tends to get very arrogant and presumptuous and seldom I get any answers on remarks that I give. And a while ago I was warned by the administration of saying things with no evidence, but evidence on an esoteric topic like this is obviously difficult to reach definitely just like that. I think no one or very few in this forum agree the Arabic is understood properly and the more people seem to open-mindedly study it the less coherent the traditional understanding is.
I stand by the results of my own study and the way I see it Arabic would be exceedingly ambiguous in case the language's words would carry multiple clearly different meanings. My research has also pointed me towards one single general meaning for each Arabic root although with attached affixes it can be altered slightly, but still keeps the root's fundamental meaning.
The most common counter-argument I receive is that "when your claim is applied to Quran in general it does not add up. Well, that is usually because in those circumstances the traditionally generated rendition is incorrect and needs reinterpretation. Quran is not so well interpreted as people may think. In fact it is a chaos and the whole understanding of the language needs to be revised. Pure amateurs made it look like this version is right.
Aramaic and Arabic are "God's" languages, but left mysterious and gotten into the hands of paganistic clergymen who could not understand it and also did interpret it as according to themselves. The abuse of this family of languages is systematic.
But very seldom does any intelligent people care to listen and it is indeed futile as Bender likes to imply in his comment to you, you are stuck in a clerical fabrication and do not seem to find your way out of it just like every person for the past 1000-2000 years who has tried to interpret it. Most people fail because they take for granted that what was already known for centuries before has any basis in the real family of Semitic languages.
I have written it before, but it is like someone just fabricated a context upon another innocent one which also does to a great extent speak of something quite different.
But that is not so difficult to figure out, the deity of the traditional interpretation of Quran is awfully primitive and not what you would expect from an advanced being like the Rabb of the world. This is because this image of Rabb was developed by Pagan-minded clergymen who actually did not have so much knowledge on the real truth and whose understanding of things is shown by reading Quran from their perspective.
Like the most advanced being in existence would care whether people are homosexual or not, no, the one who is interested in something as primitive as physical intercourse is just indulgent in vanity, but it is their own choice to be underdeveloped. No punishment except what they cause for themselves.
Prophet Lut was primarily concerned about his people's aggression and keeping of slaves and having orgies and it may be true that they were homosexually inclined but it was mainly because of the vanity in it. He offered his daughters because he had offered them in marriage to male young men who came to his home, but they were too obsessed with their spree and strange religious practices. But the story is twisted quite much throughout the history.
Lut had been forbidden to speak to outsiders and they came to isolate his guests and to prevent the word from spreading from them, but it was also to enslave and abuse strangers and take their possessions and the angels which had arrived looked tempting. And nothing in the text says the angels did not look like females in their disguise.
But this is where your translation has gotten it entirely wrong since you make "male" out of zekar for example while it does not say that.
And does not "males of the world" sound stupid as a translation and even in the native tongue point of view? Al-'Alemeen does obviously not mean world but it is a form of Alem which connotes on "to know". I have not worked on this particular segment of text, but contextually it tends to be feasible to regard zekar as something about the memory, mind or remember when you have a word with connotation on "know".
But then again this is the result of my work and I am laying forth the point of view that I am having, and in that view the family of Semitic languages has been hijacked by people who have not had a clue about what they were doing.
Be well
Amenuel -
Bender,
The reason I brought up that thread (which involved your method of understanding Quran) was because in this thread your method of understanding Quran came up again. It's simple.
In that old thread you were shown to be using an unproven method to govern how you interpret Quran - sounds dodgy to me. I felt in this thread you were doing the same thing, hence discussing testing your method - if possible.
Not my method fails but my understanding of that word fails.
Agreed BUT if your method is found lacking multiple times then we may be able to conclude your method may be weak/suspect.
Well the potential "benefits" are exactly the reason why I am against synonyms.
You're against benefits? Weird.
I assume you are referring to the "benefits" of being able to choose another meaning when our understanding doesn't fit - a suspect "benefit" hence your use of " ". If so, I wasn't even on about that hence why I referred to clarification. Forget Quran, forget Arabic, have you even considered how in a language, any language, synonyms can actually help clarify? THINK.I admit that my approach does not bring a lot of results, this means that I have for a loooooooooooooot of words/verses no clue, but I am confident that this is the way to go as I believe that this approach will lead to a better understanding.
Allowing homonyms and synonyms will for sure bring a lot of results, but it allows also a lot of different interpretations, and I am confident that this is the wrong approach.If one were to limit the scope of variation by utilising a robust checklist to check whenever one wants to choose a different meaning of the same word then that would certainly reduce variant interpretations, e.g. the same word could mean a different thing in another occurrence BUT only if
- the dominant meaning in the other occurrences has been tested extensively in this occurrence under question and found problematic (by intra-Quran analysis)
- AND there is an intra-Quran logical reason for choosing another meaning, e.g. an illogical outcome results
- AND this other meaning has some basis in Classical Arabic dictionaries or at least theory
- AND this other meaning fits a pattern, e.g. if its with a certain preposition, part of an idiom, all other occurrences fit like a glove
- AND obviously this meaning does not contradict anything anywhere else in Quran
And don't worry if you don't understand what I mean by the above, here is the method I try to stick to http//www.quran434.com/study-method.html
Generally, I prefer to use explicit methods of understanding Quran, e.g. those said in Quran itself (see link above), rather than making up interpretational rules then using these made up rules to understand Quran. If that's what others want to do, then good luck in that minefield.
Each to their own.
-
Bender,
The reason I brought up that thread (which involved your method of understanding Quran) was because in this thread your method of understanding Quran came up again. It's simple.
In that old thread you were shown to be using an unproven method to govern how you interpret Quran - sounds dodgy to me. I felt in this thread you were doing the same thing, hence discussing testing your method - if possible.
Does any one here has a proven method?
Agreed BUT if your method is found lacking multiple times then we may be able to conclude your method may be weak/suspect.
I see it differently, I think the method I use is the best there is, but it's me who is lacking skills.
You're against benefits? Weird.
I assume you are referring to the "benefits" of being able to choose another meaning when our understanding doesn't fit - a suspect "benefit" hence your use of " ". If so, I wasn't even on about that hence why I referred to clarification.
RED pedophiles, murderers, slaveholders, oppressors, thieves, etc also make use of those benefits.
I prefer correctness over benefits.Forget Quran, forget Arabic, have you even considered how in a language, any language, synonyms can actually help clarify? THINK.
Maybe there are some benefits from poetic point of view, but besides that I don't see any benefit.
I was watching a serie last week.
The bad guy Boyd Crowder held a man hostage, when he was done questioning him, he said to his sidekick Colt "Take care of him"
So Colt shot the hostage in the head.
Boyd actually meant for Colt to untie the hostage, and then reflects that he will have to be more careful with his choice of words next time.
I believe the language of the quran should be clean, it should not allow such misunderstandings.btw great serie, Boyd Crowder is O0
If one were to limit the scope of variation by utilising a robust checklist to check whenever one wants to choose a different meaning of the same word then that would certainly reduce variant interpretations, e.g. the same word could mean a different thing in another occurrence BUT only if
- the dominant meaning in the other occurrences has been tested extensively in this occurrence under question and found problematic (by intra-Quran analysis)
- AND there is an intra-Quran logical reason for choosing another meaning, e.g. an illogical outcome results
- AND this other meaning has some basis in Classical Arabic dictionaries or at least theory
- AND this other meaning fits a pattern, e.g. if its with a certain preposition, part of an idiom, all other occurrences fit like a glove
- AND obviously this meaning does not contradict anything anywhere else in Quran
And don't worry if you don't understand what I mean by the above, here is the method I try to stick to http//www.quran434.com/study-method.html
Generally, I prefer to use explicit methods of understanding Quran, e.g. those said in Quran itself (see link above), rather than making up interpretational rules then using these made up rules to understand Quran. If that's what others want to do, then good luck in that minefield.
Each to their own.
I respect your method and it will bring for sure only positive results for people who use the quran quotes you quoted in your link.
-
Peace Adem, the ayats you quoted are not commandments or
directives from Allah. There is no "o you who believe" or
"o mankind" in those ayats. Please continue.peace
bravo bravo bravo
sorry for giving reply to someone else post
i will continue actually just for this of your point .. becoz i feel due to the faulty reasonings what you guys are bringing here .. can confuse the believers...
look very carefully now...
1732 Do not go near adultery, for it is a sin and an evil path. ( missing "o mankind" oh "o you who believe"
1733 Do not kill, for God has made this forbidden, except in the course of justice(missing "o mankind" oh "o you who
believe"1736 Do not uphold what you have no knowledge of. For the hearing, eyesight, and mind, all these are held responsible for that. (missing "o mankind" oh "o you who believe"..
and lot more.... more ref will be provided on request...
i wonder what type of logics members are bringing here... really shocked... confused
-
brother hawk for you... again... look into bold parts.. and use your reason/aqal what God provided you..
26160 The people of Lot denied the messengers.
26161 For their brother Lot said to them "Will you not be righteous?"
26162 "I am to you a trustworthy messenger."( messenger by who) next verse will clear it..
26163 "So be aware of God and obey me." (messenger always bring a message from God..)
26164 "I do not ask you for a wage for my reward is upon the Lord of the worlds."
26165 "Are you attracted to the males of the worlds?" (warning of what they do)
26166 "You leave what your Lord has created for you of mates? You are an intrusive people!"
26167 They said, "If you do not cease O Lot, you will be among those driven out."
26168 He said, "I am in severe opposition to your acts!"
26169 "My Lord, save me and my family from what they do."
26170 So We saved him and his entire family.
26171 Except for an old woman who remained.
26172 Then We destroyed the others.
26173 We rained upon them a rain. Miserable was the rain to those who had been warned.
26174 In that is a sign, but most of them are not those who acknowledge.but if you think it was not by God. then you are free to believe.. that if a phrase is without oh who you beleive or oh mankind then we are exempt of obeying it .. you claim is very weak infact its not even weak its wrong... from my perception...
handshake peace -
26165 "Are you attracted to the males of the worlds?" (warning of what they do)
26166 "You leave what your Lord has created for you of mates? You are an intrusive people!"Salam, peace
It is not that simple and it is not that obvious. For some reason (I suppose biblical interpretation influence) when it comes to Lut's story everything is suddenly about homosexuality and orgies and the meaning of ?inmorality? is limited to sex. Why? Are those the really worst crimes for which a whole generation should be destroyed? Promiscuity is not welcome either it is hetero or homosexual. But I still dont understand why being homosexual is worst than being a people who destroys the earth and makes wars and does not respect basic and universal human rights.
The root for ?latatuna? is translated as ?approach? only TWICE in the Quran and it is precisely in the verses regardind Lut's people.
2929 You approach the males, and you sever the way, and you bring all vice into your place.
2755 You are approaching the men out of desire instead of the women!
Nowhere else it is translated like that, I mean, like ?approach? or ?commit?. A coincidence? hmm When it comes to Lut everything suddenly is made to fit into homosexuality while there are many other interpretations more suitable for God's sense of Justice. If it is a coincidence or a lapsus or just a very convenient interpretation, I don't really know.
The same happens to the root of ?shahwatan? in 2755, ?with lust?. There are much more appropiated roots for sexual desire, and shahwatan rather means - at least for me - ?give priority / give preference? and not sexual desire. It is exclusively ?sexual desire? and ?lust? TWICE in the Quran, precisely related to Lut's people. Like if ?passions? were only sex and precisely homosexual desire. I find it a very limited interpretation.
The root of shahwatan is the one used to say that dwellers of paradise will have in it ?whatever they desire?. So, wow, Heaven is going to be an orgy and Lut's people will be in there? Come on giveup
For example, do you see any hint of ?lust? in the use of the root of sahwatan here
1657 And they assign daughters to God; be He glorified; and to them is what they desire.
or here
3 14 It has been adorned for people the desire of women, and sons, and ornaments made from gold and silver, and trained horses, and livestock, and fields. These are the enjoyment of the world, and with God is the best abode.
I will insist once more We are more concerned about homosexuality than God is. Let's fight injustice and real evil.
At some point it really seems like shaytan is achieving to hide the real evil behind all those interpretation issues for us not to see real evil so it can go on spreading while we sit and get into meanless discussions about homosexuality.
This is my interpretation, you are welcome to desagree, of course, only God knows better. May the One and Only God give us understanding and knowledge hail
Have a greaaaaaaaaaaat day peace
-
bravo bravo bravo
sorry for giving reply to someone else post
i will continue actually just for this of your point .. becoz i feel due to the faulty reasonings what you guys are bringing here .. can confuse the believers...
look very carefully now...
1732 Do not go near adultery, for it is a sin and an evil path. ( missing "o mankind" oh "o you who believe"
1733 Do not kill, for God has made this forbidden, except in the course of justice(missing "o mankind" oh "o you who
believe"1736 Do not uphold what you have no knowledge of. For the hearing, eyesight, and mind, all these are held responsible for that. (missing "o mankind" oh "o you who believe"..
and lot more.... more ref will be provided on request...
i wonder what type of logics members are bringing here... really shocked... confused
) Peace imrankhawaja the ayats you quote are commandments and directives from
Allah, again, there are no such ayats regarding homosexuality! Please reread my
post again. handshakePeace Adem, the ayats you quoted are not commandments or
directives from Allah. There is no "o you who believe" or
"o mankind" in those ayats. Please continue.peace
-
I remember me and my friends used to think that there was something vaguely Satanic about San Francisco. We felt uncomfortable. Later on, I found out Anton LaVey's Satanic Church was based in San Francisco.So Satanism definitely has influenced the city.
rotfl
No, its not Anton LaVey's Satanic Church, but commercialism for the sake of tourism responsible for that uncomfortable feeling.And I would say more than 90% of the gay men I knew were extremely promiscuous. San Francisco was so gay as a straight male I was actually a minority and I felt kinda isolated (I knew there was gay people in San Francisco but I didn't know it was THAT gay!).
25% gay population in SF... because they are accepted. Absence of marriage leads to promiscuity. True for heterosexual people also.
I remember a man who looked like he was 50-something years old randomly came up to me and offered me money to perform oral sex on me. That kinda thing was actually kinda normal.
An Arab man of somewhere around 80 one night showed 500 dirhams to my mom for something similar back in UAE. We were shocked, but then we came to know it was "normal" there.
I would get approached constantly by gay men. I remember sitting on a bus and noticing the guy across from me was (very blatantly) checking me out.
But men do that to women. I am sure he did that too. I am also sure he never thought it was bad.
The history behind prophet Lot's people is spoken of in Quran Al-Kareem
in such concise terms that understanding the verses requires an expansive
view. The Quran states that basically the people of Lot were a criminal
society and culture and were doing things like rape of men which was
never practiced as a societal norm before them.29/29 (interesting verse and chapter no.)
What! you approach males and commit robbery on the highway,
and you commit evil deeds in your assemblies? But nothing was the
answer of his people except that they said Bring on us Allah's punishment,
if you are one of the truthful.That whole culture had to go, be destroyed the people of Lot were irredeemable.
peace
That's how I saw it too. Thank you very very much for the summary.
I understand the views of both sides.
We are not used to seeing same gender couples for which we feel uncomfortable and wrong about it. For us girls, gay men aren't big deal maybe because they behave like us. Its a familiar zone. But for straight males, it will probably remain a matter of discomfort. I won't hold it against them. I know neither my dad nor my fiance finds even a tiny clip of gay men acceptable. But, that's okay. I do feel a bit weird when I see such couples in public, but then I ask
Will I ever want my sister to marry a man who behaves like a woman and shows interest in males?
My answer is no and with that I lose the right to say homosexuality is wrong.
