Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot

[afdhere]

Salam,

I read some interesting views on Homosexuality on this forum. I wrote an essay on the People of Lot, titled: "Qawm ul Lut: Reinterpreting the Story of Lot", which can be found in:

http://huriyahmag.org/afdhere/lut.html

I would like some of you to respond to that.

Insha Allah, I will be back, as I chose the option to let me know when there are responses.

For those who don't know me, I'm the Editor of Huriyah, a queer Muslim magazine.



your brother,

Afdhere

[mquran]

Salaamun alaikum Afdhere,

You may remember me from the Progressive Muslims list. I find it strange sir, that you had the impulse to 'reevaluate' the qisaas of Lut since you were content to accept the corpus of hadith and seera literature as 'imperfect but perfect in its imperfection'. Why is Lut's tale up for reevaluation but not the story of Muhammad himself?

On to your interpretation:

You say that they did not accept Lot's offer to take his daughters instead of the visiting angels because they already had azwaaj. If this was the case, why were they going after the angels anyway?

thank you.

[afdhere]

Wa'alaikuma Salam,

Yes, I remember you. What I have always said is that the Hadith are not as perfect as the traditional Muslim makes..... nor is it as whacked ('satanic') as all these new forces claim. Like always, the answer is more moderate; the Hadith contain a lot of true and false narrations and it is up to the human being to decide, with the Quran's help.


To answer your question, because Lot was offering "love" and that was not what they were after. They were after power and subjegation.

The word azwaaj/mates demonstrates that they already were happy, as mate is the natural source of romantic happiness (i.e., significent other.)




your rbother,

Afdhere

[Layth]

Peace to you Afdhere,

You are free to read what you will in the text of the Quran, for at the end of the journey we will all stand alone and face what we said or did in this worldy life.

I personally disagree with your undertsanding for two reasons:

1. Fahisha is a general term meaning 'lewdness' and needs to be defined. God specifically refers to zina (adultry) as fahisha, just as He refers to the acts of Lot's people approaching men instead of women as 'fahisha'...We are fobidden from engaging in 'fahisha' with no exception (6:151).

2. The only legal sexual relationship in the Quran is between a man and a woman in marriage...Anything outside wedlock is forbidden (let alone same sex relations).

Please reconsider what you are promoting under God's name and know that in the end it is what we did and said here on this earth that will sway the balance...Is the risk worth it?.  

"And if they commit evil acts, they say: ?We found our fathers doing such, and God ordered us to it.? Say: ?God does not order evil!. Do you say about God what you do not know?? (7:28)

Layth

[afdhere]

Peace to you as well, Layth,

You are welcome to disagree.  Regarding your two reasons;

1. I have a problem when people translate Arabic words into Biblical-influenced words like "Sodomy" and "Lewdness." Zina or adultery is, like you mentioned, said to be fahisha/indecency/whatever...... And the people of Lot were called such because they commited Zina, as they were with women.

2. I reject the thought that sex is permitted only under marriage between "men" and "women." For heterosexual people, yes, but not for everyone. If we believed this, then the Hermophrodite (intersexed) who are born that way must live life without sex, although they do not go with any "gender." And what about those whom God creates without sexual desire for women(per 24:31)?


For one to understand the Qur'an with a free mind, one must reject and rid off cultural BS    There is a historical evidence that Muslims do not devolep these Homophobic beliefs until they get into 'Western' societies like Turkey and Spain. And even gets more influence when the British Empire settles.




your brother,

Afdhere

[AaRoN]

peace

angels?

[esimsek100]

Peace,

If we believed this, then the Hermophrodite (intersexed) who are born that way must live life without sex,

What about the person who becomes paralysed and loses the use of their lower body?

I personally believe that each one of us is given a specific test from our Lord. Your test happens to be homosexuality. If you pass or fail it, it is no concern of mine, that is between yourself and God.

I do understand your suffering, because I have been brought up and lived through clashing ideologies. I've been brought up in Australia were I'm expected, by the boys, to get as many girls as possible in the sack, but Islam denies me this (for my own benefit). So on one side I have peer pressure and on the other side I have my belief in God.

[afdhere]

Aaron,

Read the essay or the relevant verses to the story of Lot  




Esimsek100,

You are comparing Apples and Oranges. For one, the palayze is a medical condition. And there are many birth defects.... directly caused by whacked parents (smoking, drinking, drugs, etc... ) that has nothing to do with God.

There are intersexed people who are 50/50. There is no possible medical help for them. And the Medical world knows that it had nothing to do with their parents..... and are tons of the 'unexplained' creations.

And please don't compare your teenage lusts with eternal beings. And if you are at age where you can have sex, then you should get married These are your own societal BS, nothing to do with Islam or reality, mate

One of my good friends, Sulayman X -- has been celibate for more than five years now. Nevertheless.... he is very much a Homosexual. So this is not even about 'sex.'




your brother,

Afdhere

[AaRoN]

peace

Read the essay or the relevant verses to the story of Lot.

i have read thoses verses, several times in fact.
i want to know where it says angels.
don't don your sunglasses yet, slick.

i'm not sure if the 'angels' or the following is my favourite part of your essay:

In all of Jewish records, Abraham was born around 1800 BCE.

ah, historic records, my favourite source of trustworthy information.

By just reading the text for what it actually says ? rather than what others say for it, based on culture or previous faiths and what have you ? one can arrive at their own right conclusion.

well, since we are reading it for what it says, now i am certain that you won't mind showing me where it says angels

[afdhere]

Peace to you too, Aaron,

You said:

i have read thoses verses, several times in fact.
i want to know where it says angels.
don't don your sunglasses yet, slick.

If you read the verses, you realize it says "And we sent our Messengers to ... "

i'm not sure if the 'angels' or the following is my favourite part of your essay:

"In all of Jewish records, Abraham was born around 1800 BCE."

ah, historic records, my favourite source of trustworthy information.

Are we displaying anti-Semitism here? Until Muhammad came, it was only the Jewish people who cared about when Abraham was born :roll:

That said, since there is no other source... then theirs must be considered

well, since we are reading it for what it says, now i am certain that you won't mind showing me where it says angels

Ok, here are a few reasons  to think these "Messengers" are Angels:

a) God says that God chooses Messengers from Humans and Angels
b) These Messengers tell Lot that the people won't expell him ("their hand won't reach you") and that they will destroy them.
c) Last I checked, human Messengers didn't destroy nobody :lol: Actually, like Lot himself, most human Messengers are pushed around :cry:




your brother,

Afdhere