gay people and islam
-
Peace nabi and all. Is the reading the only way to morality? A person could make the reading fit whatever they wanted it to given the right circumstances,eg follow allah and the prophet meaning follow the sunnah.
I am finding this obsession for evidence from the quran similiar to 'we need hadith to understand islam'. What is the role of our minds,our experiences,our consciences? is this quran an idol?How do i know to put food in my mouth from the quran? Dont you think searching for everything in the quran(rather than some basic principles) is a little like blind following of a 1400 year old collection of facts?Where is the rocket science,tv,test-tube babies etc,etc. in the quran?(Explicitly not in obscure form)
Peace all. -
Peace be upon you Idolfree,
So animals LUST after other animals? Kyle Animals only have a REPRODUCTIVE instinct. They don't lust after.
Can you prove that Animals only have reproductive instinct, and have no pleasure from mating?
Yes there is pleasure but animals carry this out in the mating season. We as a human species don't do this.
Bulls may smell urine, but like someone said, aren't men more attracted to women when they are ovulating?
That may be so. But what I am saying we are not slave to Darwinian Reproductive Urge to REPRODUCE anymore. We are now in control of our REPRODUCTION. The Primary use of Sex is no longer for REPRODUCTION but for PLEASURE.
I thought the whole reason we always wanted to have sex was because of the pleasure, but the primary purpose of sex was to procreate. Thus, the pleasure aspect of sex is what drives us to want to procreate.
PRIMARY use of SEX now is not for REPRODUCTION. It is for pleasure.
I didn't know, that in the past we'd think "well, I gotta keep my lineage going so as to fulfill darwinian principles, so I guess I'll have sex now".
In the past we were driven by the DARWINIAN REPRODUCTIVE URGE towards REPRODUCTION. So we had many offspring as we could. But we are now in control of our REPRODUCTION. So PRIMARY use of SEX is PLEASURE.
Are you sure that humans are the only spiritual animals?
...Erm, yes far as I know. Unless you can show me Animals having built temples to worship their Gods or God -)
We are the only species to conceive ideas that go beyond it. Like the Idea of a God. We are the only species that worship Gods or God. No such observation made in the animal world.
How do you know this?
By studying wink
I thought the whale song was pretty spiritual.
Yes whale song may sound spiritual to our ears. But we are the only species that worship God(s).
That whole penguin movie, also made penguins seem spiritual.
Have they been observed to worship at a temple and offering to their Gods or God?
Once agian, if homosexual came from animals, does that make it right?
PeaceWhat I am saying is that even in Animal World we observe homosexuality in a small percentage of any population. Why is this?
Regards,
-
Peace
Enquirer, you are avoiding the issues. I'm trying to get a straight answer out of you or anyone else concerning my inquiry about homosexuality and islam.
Is the reading the only way to morality?
It most certainly is not.
A person could make the reading fit whatever they wanted it to given the right circumstances,eg follow allah and the prophet meaning follow the sunnah.
Indeed. Where is this leading us when I only want to discuss the position of the reading on homosexuality?
I am finding this obsession for evidence from the quran similiar to 'we need hadith to understand islam'.
We're discussing it according to the reading. The influx of new members is related to little use of the reading when it comes to discussiong the issues of the ummah.
What is the role of our minds,our experiences,our consciences?
Why the tangent?
is this quran an idol?
To some it may be.
How do i know to put food in my mouth from the quran?
You do not.
Such a question by you begs me to ask what you believe the purpose of the reading is for because it seems you have little or no clue.
Dont you think searching for everything in the quran(rather than some basic principles) is a little like blind following of a 1400 year old collection of facts?
I'm not talking about searching for everything in the reading. You are blowing things out of proportion and speaking out of context.
Where is the rocket science,tv,test-tube babies etc,etc. in the quran?(Explicitly not in obscure form)
I ask again what you believe is the purpose of the reading?
Joe
P.S. I know many of you are new to the ideology of, for lack of a better word/s "Quran Alone" and are ignorant on many matters pertaining to the reading. There has been a huge influx of such posters. Enquirer the purpose of Free-Minds and what it is about is clear on the front page of the site. I encourage you and all others to take a look.
This website has been created for all people who have a desire to allow God into their lives and follow His path alone...
This website invites all people of various beliefs (Sunni, Shia, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Bahai, Agnostic, Humanist, and even Atheists) to come and examine for themselves the system of Submission/Islam which is based on God Alone.
Many of you may outwardly be content with your current faith or that which you inherited from your parents and community...but to some out there, there will always be a tugging at the back of their mind that 'there is something more', and that 'some things don't always make sense'...
If you are one of those people, then open your eyes, put on your thinking cap, and welcome to an open examination of the system of Submission/Islam which very few know about... <excerpt>
-
Hi Nabi,
This is a quranic forum. Understand?
I thought this was 'God alone'' forum. Is it Quran alone?
Peace!
-
The example of the American boy is one of biological sex, not sexuality.
You miss the point. Some have said children can be conditioned to be homosexuals. This case proves that even when you raise a boy as a girl and conditoned the boy to be a girl even with hormone supplements, can't make a boy into girl. Research has shown that homosexuality is rooted in the brain-wiring.
Actually homosexuality is not evident in the animal kingdom.
http//www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3008
Ok, human beings are different than animals, I think that we can all agree to that. But answer these questions
1)why do two women who are really close often fall into synch with their menstrual cycle?
- why do women who are close tend to get preganant around the same time?
Yes we have become exceptionally different species but we have evolved from the Animal World.
How do you know that sex is more pleasureable for human beings?
We don't have a mating season wink
Ok, we can have orgasms in our sleeps, but the point of having a sexual orgasm is purely to make reproduction more efficient.
Yes that is true. But the primary use of sex is not for reproduction anymore. We have reached a stage in our development as a species where we have control over our reproduction and therefore primary use of sex is now for pleasure.
I disagree. Beauty has it's own standard and is nothing to do with reproduction.
Please give an example of this.
Angelina Jolie -)
You seem to rely on the notion of "now" but the purpose of sex must be true now as it was before the advent of condoms and BC pills.
The purpose of sex does not change just b/c we invent ways to get around the consequence.But it has. We are living in an Anti-Darwinian World.
For example, the purpose of food is to nourish our bodies.
Just b/c food happens to be delicious does not erase the sheer purpose of nourishing our bodies. The fact that it tastes good only facilitates the nourishment we gain since we are more likely to continue eating if we enjoy the taste.Incorrect analogy. Without food we die. But we can go without sex for years wink
Regards,
-
Lotetree,
It seems that your power to reason is borderline comatoseYou miss the point. Some have said children can be conditioned to be homosexuals. This case proves that even when you raise a boy as a girl and conditoned the boy to be a girl even with hormone supplements, can't make a boy into girl. Research has shown that homosexuality is rooted in the brain-wiring.
It is you who is missing the point. Being conditioned to be a boy or a girl has nothing to do with sexual preference. I can be a girl and enjoy sleeping with men or I can be a girl who enjoys sleeping with women. I can also be a girl who does not enjoy sex at all.
http//www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3008
Granted, but why does the article not go in more detail about how the study was actually conducted. I searched a bit for more on this topic and found a blurb
It should be noted however that some view this study to be flawed in that the determination of homosexuality within the sheep, (sample population of twenty-seven for the study), was to have animals who were unable to mount female ewes placed in a cage with two stanchioned males and two unstanchioned females (that is, the males could not move or struggle while the females could). Given the aggressive nature of the sheep copulation, the uneven treatment of males and females, many see this as simply evidence that the sheep in question were unable to be aggressive enough to mount females. Some say that the results were situational sexuality, unlike the bonds seen in human homosexuality. However the physical brain anatomy of the rams that preferred males were different..."The dense cluster of neurons that comprise the oSDN express cytochrome P450 aromatase. Aromatase mRNA levels in the oSDN were significantly greater in female-oriented rams than in ewes, whereas male-oriented rams exhibited intermediate levels of expression." These results suggest that "...naturally occurring variations in sexual partner preferences may be related to differences in brain anatomy and its capacity for estrogen synthesis." Read the abstract of the study. As noted previously, given the potential unagressiveness of the male population in question, the differing aromatase levels may also have been evidence of aggression levels, not sexuality. The results of this study have not been confirmed by others.
So, it seems that the "gay" rams are simply the less aggressive ones, and their apparent brain chemistry only demonstrates this lack of aggression as opposed to their homosexuality. Once again, animals have seasons and it seems that less aggressive males have to settle with male to male copulating since they cannot secure a female with whom to breed.Yes that is true. But the primary use of sex is not for reproduction anymore. We have reached a stage in our development as a species where we have control over our reproduction and therefore primary use of sex is now for pleasure.
Why don't you go tell that to a woman who finds out that she's pregnant though she used a condom? These measures are only so protective against pregnancy. Also, we do not have control going the other way either. There is no 100% guaranteed way to get pregnant, regardless of in-vitro fertilization.
Angelina Jolie
I sense that it is a waste of time to even bother replying to you. Why is Angelina Jolie attractive to the general male population. Polls have been taken and it is shown that men would rather have sex with her than marry her. Why is this? Perhaps it is b/c she "oozes" sex from her wise eyes, full lips, full breasts, curvy hips...all things that scream fertility. And guess what...she's pregnant!
Incorrect analogy. Without food we die. But we can go without sex for years
My point was not the necessity of the act but the purpose of the act. It is obviously pointless to talk to you, as usual. You have made up your mind that we are anti-darwinian or some other nonsense and you'll stick to it. Yes, the West is the bastion of all that is good and moral. I hope that works for you.
-
Hi Nabi,
Yes it is both.
I dont know how ur definition of Quran alone goes.
Does that mean throwing understanding, reasoning, logic, thinking, analysing stuff & gaining knowledge to realise truth/reality into the drain?
And I moreover thought this is no seperate sect.... Now is this one? And are u defining the norms of it?
If it is so, propably u should suggest to Layth to make it clear in the forum rules or so, that only words from Quran should be discussed for their meaning and nothing beyond.roll
Peace!
-
Lotetree,
It seems that your power to reason is borderline comatoseIs that to show yours isn't ichephren?
Your exemplery reasoning equated the need food for survival with Sex! -)
and others thought that reasoning was "fantastic" winkIt is you who is missing the point. Being conditioned to be a boy or a girl has nothing to do with sexual preference.
No. I am afraid you are. The question was that children can be influenced to be homosexual. This case shows that it can never be the case no matter how much you condition a child. Their Brain-Wiring will determine ultimately their Sexuality.
I can be a girl who enjoys sleeping with women. I can also be a girl who does not enjoy sex at all.
Enjoying sex is not the question. There are many hetrosexuals who don't enjoy sex. There are also homosexual who don't enjoy sex. The question is homosexuality seemed to be rooted in the Brain-Wiring.
http//www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3008
Granted, but why does the article not go in more detail about how the study was actually conducted.
I did not write the Article. And it is a scientific paper. The scientific method will determines it's validity. That is how science works.
These measures are only so protective against pregnancy. Also, we do not have control going the other way either. There is no 100% guaranteed way to get pregnant, regardless of in-vitro fertilization.
The discussion is not about best method of contraceptives or invitro fertilisation.
Angelina Jolie
I sense that it is a waste of time to even bother replying to you.
Why? you as women - are you jealous of Angelina's beauty wink -)
Why is Angelina Jolie attractive to the general male population. Polls have been taken and it is shown that men would rather have sex with her than marry her.
The marriage point was not even in the question. But she is beautiful whether a man wants to marry her not wink
Why is this?
Because she is beautiful wink
Perhaps it is b/c she "oozes" sex from her wise eyes, full lips, full breasts, curvy hips...all things that scream fertility.
Yes, all these things but Angelina Jolie is beautiful wink
And guess what...she's pregnant!
And guess what - she chose to get pregnant wink
Incorrect analogy. Without food we die. But we can go without sex for years
My point was not the necessity of the act but the purpose of the act.
Your analogy is incorrect. Please don't pursue it. Let it go.
It is obviously pointless to talk to you, as usual.
I thought it was quite useful for me to talk to you to contrast your views. If you see that as pointless then I am unable to do anything about it except to offer apologies if I have upset you.
You have made up your mind that we are anti-darwinian or some other nonsense and you'll stick to it.
If it was nonsense then it would not have upset you that much but I guess it is not nonsense and thats why perhaps you are upset wink
Yes, the West is the bastion of all that is good and moral. I hope that works for you.
I see. You are biased aswell. You talk of reason and yet you say the above.
What can I say?
Shanti Shanti Shanti
Regards,
-
Peace Icephren,
I think ur post to LT is a bit harsh/emotional which wasnt warranted. We ought to discuss peacefully if at all.
Anyways, with regards to sex & reproduction.......
These days sex is not only about conception. If every person in the world has unprotected sex every time like people of the past, we would have a population explosion.(A 50 something tribal indian woman (she didnt practise contraception anytime in her life) who I met a few years back had 11 living children(5 more had died at some point starting from infancy-16 births in total) and also had 5-6 miscarriages -all from one monogamous relationship)Now a days, we pretty much pre decide the maximum number of children we want to have and then accordingly allow unprotected sex for the purpose. But otherwise, one has protected sex, is it not?(I agree no contraception is absolutely(100%) foolproof but in general it prevents conception)
How many times do u think an adult has sexual intercourse with the intent of conception as compared to the number of times he has it for pleasure?
Is sexual act not accompanied with the intent of conception, wrong? And what about non penetrative sex?
Peace!
-
Peace peaceful-muslim and all. Thank you peaceful-muslim for your post to nabi and your last post. I get a feeling of being patronised from some members(who happen to be moderators as well). I mean there is no clear-cut consensus on salat(which is fine by me) yet people talk about the quran as though god personally told them the interpretation.(and so they can stop reasoning,learning and questioning) and it is their duty to refute everybody elses views.
And nabi,your post to me last night was very patronising to me and new members. You seem to think that there is one methodology(which you conveniently seem very knowledgable on) and that we must be spoon-fed by you and the older members. I appreciate i can learn off other members,but dont you think you could learn off other members as well?
All this god-alone/quran-alone,come one you sound like the person calling himself a 'sunni' or 'shiah' or george bush; 'if your not with us your against us'. I dislike dividing humanity into non-muslim and muslim(saved and doomed) it can dehumanise us so that we think we are better than others or that they are inferiour.(this is called racism) We are all from the human race,if you feel you have knowledge to give or someone is 'astray' call him to good deeds by wisdom,respect and tolerance. Not with a patronising,superiority complex. I suggest some of you read some of your recent posts with an open mind and decide if you would like to be talked to the way you have talked to some other members.
Many members say not to follow what they have no knowledge of,or that some of the verses of the quran are mutashabihat(not yet explained or needing other references),with this in mind why do some members prohibit pork? What is the reason.(or are they following what they have no knowledge of?or just stating their own dislikes/prejudices?) To just say allah says so, is disregarding these verses.
What if the verses you regard as prohibiting homosexuality are not referring to consentual sexuality,but forced actions.(note the people of lut wanted to engage with the angels sexually.-would the angels have consented?if no, then could that have been the crime?attempted rape?)
I wish you guys respect and peace and i dont mean any bad feelings to you. I feel i should just speak out and point out a few things. ) -
peace all. While on the topic of sexuality,i will ask a question. Is a man or woman with a high libido(ie different from the norm) some kind of pervert?(according to the logic that anybody with a different sexuality from the norm is wrong) I would say not necessarily. As long as they can control their sexuality so it doesnt harm themselves or others what is the problem?(they could also meet a consenting partner with similiar high libido and so be happy) just because we do not understand or identify with someones sexuality doesnt always make it wrong. Empathy, rational-thinking and tolerance are needed.( Ps;can anyone answer the above question from the quran?)
Peace all. -
Peace
I dont know how ur definition of Quran alone goes.
Back in middle of 2003 I stated
You understand the Quran alone in the wrong manner. Quran alone is just a statement that implies, 'No other book other than the Quran alone to guide us and instruct us in the system God has prescribed.' If you are in doubt to this ideology of taking the Scripture alone as a guidance to God's system than meet the challenge proposed in verses 2849-50.
I hope that clarifies.
Does that mean throwing understanding, reasoning, logic, thinking, analysing stuff & gaining knowledge to realise truth/reality into the drain?
No. Please show me how I may have implied this because I'd like to not do so in future discussion.
And I moreover thought this is no seperate sect.... Now is this one?
Depends on your definition of sect and the context. I'd say no.
And are u defining the norms of it?
No.
If it is so, propably u should suggest to Layth to make it clear in the forum rules or so, that only words from Quran should be discussed for their meaning and nothing beyond.
Still misunderstanding me. I did not say that this forum is limited to the reading. I said it is the backbone of this forum. Please pay attention.
Joe
-
Peace All,
First let me say,that I do not judge or hate any person,whether they are straight,gay,lesbian,or of another race or ethnicity etc,but I dont believe homosexuality is acceptable...........both the Quran and the Bible of Jews and Christians condemn it and make it clear that men and women are to be joined in marriage,Allah even created the sexual organs of both male and female so they could be joined to reproduce.There is absolutely no doubt that Christianity, Judaism and Islam, the three most widely embraced religions in America condemn homosexual behavior in the strongest terms
According to the Old Testament & the Koran, the people of Lot were destroyed because they engaged in homosexual behavior and were unrepenting and un accepting of God's admonishment (Holy Bible, Genesis chapter 13, 14, 18, 19; Koran 780-84; 416 etc)
In the book of Romans, in the Bible , Paul states
"Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error (Romans 122-27)."http//members.aol.com/masadi/homos.htm
-
Peace nabi and all. I believe the quran can be a 'tool' or 'kickstart' to help rational thinking,but it is not the only tool nor is it 'absolute'.(nor absolutely essential) It is not the last word on everything nor is it infallible. (there are numerous horrendous deeds that have been done in the name of the quran and/or god) The quran can be used for good or for bad.(depending on the individual and circumstances). If the quran is infallible,what is the point in veryfying it? Has anyone ever been convinced on a certain interpretation of a verse(that this is what god meant),only to change their mind about the meaning of that verse a few months later?(eg salat,fasting,the sunnah etc..) This is why we try to be careful to be open-minded(not dogmatic)as new knowledge/understandings can refute our previous 'knowledge'.
Peace all. -
Peace Enquirer
And nabi,your post to me last night was very patronising to me and new members.
Take it as you will.
I only pointed out that there are members, new ones, who tend to debate issues of islam without a referrece to the reading and that the backbone of this forum lies on a quranic constitution/structure.
You seem to think that there is one methodology
I do not think so.
that we must be spoon-fed by you and the older members.
Your imagination is getting the best of you.
dont you think you could learn off other members as well?
Most certainly. I have never declared myself all-knowing or as the teacher of which I soley apply to God .
All this god-alone/quran-alone,come one you sound like the person calling himself a 'sunni' or 'shiah' or george bush
Okay. Your prerogative.
I dislike dividing humanity into non-muslim and muslim(saved and doomed) it can dehumanise us so that we think we are better than others or that they are inferiour.
It is what it is. There are muslimeen/those who surrender or the muttaqi/those who keep their duty, and there are kafireen/those who oppose or almufsid/the mischief-makers according to the reading . People are justifiably given the fruits of their works, in word and in deed. I believe your idea is somewhat naive, that the perverse should aquire the same stations of those who have labored with their lives and goods to achieve .
this is called racism
No, racism is a socio-economic system. Classic dictionaries have defined racism as looking out for one's own people , it being their only concern to the exclusion of others. Muslimeen look out for all and treat none badly.
We are all from the human race,if you feel you have knowledge to give or someone is 'astray' call him to good deeds by wisdom,respect and tolerance.
Yes this is clearly defined in the reading . I am firmly aware. Thank you for the reminder nevertheless.
Not with a patronising,superiority complex.
That's quite a joke. I'd be the last person exhibiting such qualities.
with this in mind why do some members prohibit pork?
It is their belief, just as you have the belief that people should not be divided as muslims and non-muslims.
To just say allah says so, is disregarding these verses.
Well it certainly depends on the context. People say that God says without any understanding whatsoever or knowledge thereof .
What if the verses you regard as prohibiting homosexuality are not referring to consentual sexuality,but forced actions.
Yes I clearly understand what you are saying which is why am trying to incorporate the full picture. Which is why I'm asking for you to show me that the institution of marriage applies to homosexuals in the reading.
Joe
-
Peace nabi and all. The word zawj in arabic can mean partners,equal,counterpart. It can be two males,two females or a male and a female. Now apply this understanding to surah 30 verse 21. where it states ;' it is from allahs signs that he created zawj(partners,equals,counterparts) that you may live peacefully with them(obviously with consent) and he has put love and mercy between the partners,in this there is a sign for those who think deeply'. Now does this not apply to faithful,commited,homosexual relationships as well as hetrosexual ones too? By the way the arabic for nafs is feminine so does this mean that all creatures also have a feminine side too? Or that all men are feminine? Or that if we are created from a single nafs(surah 4;1)
then we are not created from adam(as he is male) but from a female.(adams partner?) If you delve deeper you are opening up a pandoras box of ideas.(which i hope you are strong enough to cope with-and i mean that sincerely joe). Pluralism and open-mindedness can lead to great new insights.
Peace all. -
Peace
The word zawj in arabic can mean partners,equal,counterpart. It can be two males,two females or a male and a female.
I said that already. Why the repetition, again I ask?
God clearly determines that the pairs/zawj are male/female.
Now apply this understanding to surah 30 verse 21.
Which one, same sex or differing sex?
Now does this not apply to faithful,commited,homosexual relationships as well as hetrosexual ones too?
Not when you apply it to the whole reading ]. It oft leads to problems when you isolate one verse which is part of a wider context.
By the way the arabic for nafs is feminine so does this mean that all creatures also have a feminine side too?
Yes nafs is indeed feminine. Duality permeats the universe.
Or that all men are feminine?
Are they?
Or that if we are created from a single nafs(surah 4;1)
Yes a single nafs which is feminine.
This has been discussed before. Try out the search function.
then we are not created from adam(as he is male) but from a female.
The nafs is not the body, bashar. Adam is the whole of mankind. Let's not go into that as of now since that is a wholly different topic.
If you delve deeper you are opening up a pandoras box of ideas.(which i hope you are strong enough to cope with-and i mean that sincerely joe).
You need not worry about if I'm willing to open Pandora's box.
Joe
-
I did not intend to be mean in my post, I just become easily frustrated when discussing something that the other person does not seem to take the time to think about. For example, I pointed out that Angelina was considered attractive b/c of certain features that she has which indicate that she is fertile, this correlating beauty with fertility. Lotetree replied that he just thinks she's so beautiful. He doesn't bother to find the point, but prefers to go on about his business with some preconceived idea, so I find it pointless to continue this discussion with him. I think he did make a good point by linking to the "gay" rams...but then again, he didn't bother to defend that either. Once again, I am just frustrated with that approach, but I still think that this is a good debate we're having and I will do my part to keep the debate friendly. Apologies to all who may have been offended...