Free Minds

General Issues / Questions => General Issues / Questions => Topic started by: afdhere on September 19, 2003, 12:33:00 PM

Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 19, 2003, 12:33:00 PM
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
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: mquran on September 19, 2003, 10:29:42 PM
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.
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 20, 2003, 12:24:55 AM
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
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: Layth on September 20, 2003, 01:02:47 AM
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
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 20, 2003, 02:11:10 AM
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  :D  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
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: AaRoN on September 20, 2003, 02:52:13 AM
peace

angels?
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: esimsek100 on September 20, 2003, 05:37:58 AM
Peace,

Quote
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.
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 20, 2003, 08:51:51 AM
Aaron,

Read the essay or the relevant verses to the story of Lot  8)




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 :P These are your own societal BS, nothing to do with Islam or reality, mate 8)

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
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: AaRoN on September 20, 2003, 12:04:44 PM
peace

Quote
Read the essay or the relevant verses to the story of Lot. 8)


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:

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


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

Quote
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 :)
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 20, 2003, 02:21:17 PM
Peace to you too, Aaron,

You said:

Quote

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 ... " :)



Quote
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 :)

Quote

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
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: zenje on September 20, 2003, 07:19:19 PM
The Queer editor said:
Quote
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.

They are swaying in-between, neither belonging to this group nor to that group. Whoever God will misguide, you will not find for him a way. 4:143
Quote
Are we displaying anti-Semitism here? Until Muhammad came, it was only the Jewish people who cared about when Abraham was born

Hey Aaron... this guy has no clue! :lol:
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: shamsul-arefin on September 20, 2003, 08:20:14 PM
Peace be upon all,

                         I think its not nice to totally ignore afdhere's point. He might have some issues here which we need to reconsider..........

I am quite interested to know how sexual life should be of Hermaphrodite (intersexed) people. We might think that they are a defect but what if they are not..? What if they are also a natural creation to create balance in the society..? What does Quran say about their sexual life..?

And another thing I was thinking that the meaning "Lewdness" or "sodomy" are more cultural based. How would people on the region of india or asia pacific know what theses words mean...? I mean like how would those people know of the meaning who never heard about Sodom or lot..?

Peace
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: Damon on September 20, 2003, 09:15:37 PM
Peace family,

First of all, ahdfere mistranslated 24:31.

That verse Does Not speak of anyone being born without sexual desire or preference. It speaks of those whose sexual desire has "waned" or "died down" which can occur from a variety of circumstances ranging from paralysis to old age.

Also, Aaron asked where does it say that they were angels that GOD had sent. Adhfere replied with the interpretation of "Messengers". Where and How he manages to toppsy-terve those two terms is totally beyond me.

Shamsul-Arefin said he believes that "hermaphrodites" are meant to bring some sort of balance to the broad scheme of things. We all know that GOD is the "Best Designer".

I personally do not interpret it the same way Shamsul-Arefin does. I believe GOD will allow "Hermaphrodites" as well as people born with down syndrome, born with missing limbs, siamese twins as well as scores of other of what they call "Birth Defects" as a Reminder to MANKIND that life truly is designed perfectly and had their not been a Creator of Life and of the universe we would never be concieved of and brought into this world so "perfectly".
Instead we would come into this world in much worse conditions than these "Birth Defects".

One last thing, The prior two "so-called" monotheistic "Religions" and almost all of their subdivisions and sects have embraced and "blessed" Homosexuality. Being that the "islam" that is known today is just as non-monotheistic as the other "Religions" with that same title, then why should I be surprised when people who are "Traditional Muslims" follow suit?

After all, they've followed suit in everything else namely: setting up a human being as GOD or as a partner with GOD and producing and subsequently totally adhering to man's laws in matters of their respective "Religions" instead of GOD's law. Not to mention the deliberate twisting of GOD's words and scripture.

I already knew what we were dealing with when this person was defending hadith, and now....

Keep your eyes open brothers and sisters and let's see how long before the wider Traditional Muslim world "come out" and publicly embrace and sanctify homosexuality just like the other Monotheistic "Religions".

Peace family. Stay up,

Damon.
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: John_From_Ohio on September 21, 2003, 07:35:12 AM
Peace All,

Personally, I do not condone homosexuality.  I believe it to be against God's system.  This is my *opinion* based on my current understanding of the Quran.

On the other hand, I certainly don't believe that homosexual people should be treated badly or unfairly.  Ultimately, it is for God to decide and to judge.

Peace,

John
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: zenje on September 21, 2003, 08:09:12 AM
Quote
And the people of Lot were called such because they commited Zina, as they were with women.

 :?:

And Lot, he said to his people: ?Do you commit lewdness with what no people of the worlds before you had done?? (7:80)
?You come to men with desire instead of women; you are a transgressing people.? (7:81)
The only response of his people was: ?Drive them out of your town, they are a people who wish to be pure!? (7:82)


?Do you approach the males of the worlds??(26:165)
?And you leave what your Lord has created for you of mates? You are an intrusive people!?(26:166)


These verses (and more!) are so difficult to understand, I probably need some scholars to explain them! :twisted:
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 21, 2003, 03:36:32 PM
Zenj quoted a verse talking about 'with us' or 'against us' :lol: Well, here is what Muslims are supposed to be:

"... wakana baina thalika qawwaman" (... who are between that, medium) - 25.67

In other words, the practice of the Buddha: moderatism ;-) But leave it to some humans for not being able to get it. This reminds me the Arabs who couldn't understand why God would not condemn all of the Jewish people. lol


And since I have no clue, why don't you tell us those before Jews who were so interested in Abraham? :roll:



Afdhere
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 21, 2003, 03:38:03 PM
shamsul-arefin, salam,

Yes, the words like "luuti"(sodomite) are actually cultural crap. In reality, a Luuti is somoene who is a follower of Lut, which means a Muslim :-)


Afdhere
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 21, 2003, 03:57:08 PM
Salam, Damon,

You remind me the masses who always want God to hold their hand through things :) Have you read the verse in Arabic? If not, this is what the phrase in question says:

"... aw i al-ttabi`eena ghayri ulee al-irbati min al-rrijali... " / "or the attendants without sexual desire among the men"

As for the Angels/Messengers, see 22:75 ... where God says God chooses Messengers from Humans and Angels.

And, as for other "religions," they just recognized that their faiths do not condemn Homosexuality. Like everyone else everywhere, the Arabs -- who brough Islam -- were introduced to Homophobism by the West.
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 21, 2003, 04:00:17 PM
Zenj,

Quote
These verses (and more!) are so difficult to understand, I probably need some scholars to explain them![/quote>

No, rather... you should understand that languages that God communicates with people... totally depends on their "understandings" of that language. For example, what the Arabs believed about being a rijjal/male.

My problem with the non-Arab Western "reformers" is that they completely rely on the translations of Homophobic people like Rashad Khalifa... without understanding the Arab culture :roll:
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: AaRoN on September 21, 2003, 05:01:17 PM
peace

Quote
And since I have no clue, why don't you tell us those before Jews who were so interested in Abraham? :roll:


you still missed the point. :)

--

Quote
"... aw i al-ttabi`eena ghayri ulee al-irbati min al-rrijali... " / "or the attendants without sexual desire among the men"


you mean like doctors?

--

show me the part of the Quran that mentions that two men may marry eachother, thus making an intimate relationship between them lawful. that's all it takes.

--

i find it strange that a homosexual would be a proponent of the hadith which say to kill him as opposed to the Quran which says that those caught committing adultery outside of marriage should be given 100 lashes with a group of believers as witness.

--

Quote
And, as for other "religions," they just recognized that their faiths do not condemn Homosexuality. Like everyone else everywhere, the Arabs -- who brough Islam -- were introduced to Homophobism by the West.


wow, is there anything you can't blame whitey for?

ha, the other religions recognised that their faiths do not condemn homosexuality? oh, so what, they decided that all those parts of leviticus no longer apply?

please.

how about this theory...it's all about numbers...the power of the church is waning, membership is down, so in order to get the numbers back up and keep the coffers full, acceptance of homosexuals was a financial necessity.

remember, man made clergy dominated religions actually rely on human beings to keep them in existence.

--

let me ask you...

if an alcoholic is born an alcoholic, is it ok for them to be a drunk?
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: John_From_Ohio on September 21, 2003, 05:10:24 PM
Peace Afdhere,

I ask this question with no intent to insult, nor do I have the understanding of arabic to translate these on my own...

Quote
My problem with the non-Arab Western "reformers" is that they completely rely on the translations of Homophobic people like Rashad Khalifa... without understanding the Arab culture


I'm one of those folks that has to rely on translators for the time being.  However, every translation I've read tends to lean me toward similar conclusions on this subject.  

Is it the arabic translation where you claim difference, or in the interpretation thereof?

Peace,

John
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 21, 2003, 05:27:52 PM
Salam, Aaron,

So, what was the point... pray tell?

And what do you mean doctors? The 'attendants'/tabi`eena ... (the world literally means; those who follow them around lol) ... refers to the males who guarded the Arab women when the Qur'an came to them. For example, according to Muslim and non-Muslim reports, Muhammad's own wives had such men. They were exactly what today we call a gay man: men who have no sexual desires for women.

As for two men marrying each other; this is nonesense... since the reason marriage exists in Islam is something impossible between men; offspring. Hence, it doesn't make sense why Marriage is a question for queer Muslims. Marriage has become a rather "cute" thing for humans... which makes the average human - queer or otherwise - desire such institution.

By the way, I'm not Homosexual. I'm queer. Homosexual is one who has sexual desire for the same gender. My last three relationships were; male, female, transsexual. :-) Hardly Homosexual.

And it is not a matter of what the Hadith says, rather what it doesn't say. Read the Essay... where the Hadiths in question are raised.

As for "whitey," actually -- I'm referring to kinds of "West" that sort of predates them Whites. Greeks, for one ;-)

And, no, they decided that the Leviticus were written as they are ... just that they do not mean what the Homophobes have interpreted them to mean. There are very, very old Jewish arguments against the "classical" Jewish approach to the verses in that chapter, for example.

And I wasn't referring to Christianity. Christianity's homophobic stances were always based on the Jewish ones, however anti-Semite Christendom has been. :) And to this day, like everybody else, the Jewish queers do not even number 10% and truly... those of us who know ... know the Jewish "money" specifically ... always laid with Jewish families... excluding the Homos ;-)

Alcoholic is a medical condition. It is something you inherit (again the diseases people inherit.) Also, whether born or not, all intoxicants are discouraged in the Qur'an. Note the word: DISCOURAGED.
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 21, 2003, 05:36:41 PM
Peace to you too, John,


You ask:

Quote
I'm one of those folks that has to rely on translators for the time being. However, every translation I've read tends to lean me toward similar conclusions on this subject. Is it the arabic translation where you claim difference, or in the interpretation thereof?


It is actually both. Let me give you an example;

First, when Rashad Khalifa -- like many others -- translates verses that talk about the denounciation of males approaching other males, such translators should include the fact that Arabic and Western societies look at "Males" in two total differences. In Arabic society, any male beside heterosexual was NEVER -- ever -- referred to as "male." In Western societies, even the Transsexual who have taken hormoes and is completely no longer even able to sleep with a woman... is STILL referred to as a "male." Big difference, wouldn't you say?

Second, when translator like Khalifa give their own Homophobic "footnotes," it further spits on the face of the Arabic language, the Time and Place of the Qur'an and the Message of God.


If people want to translate a complicated text (why non-believing Arabs had to call Muhammad "Poet" in the Qur'an) into a language of totally different culture, folks should translate with care... and much much... emphasis on the differences between cultures. What maybe mentioned in Arabic in passing... can be turned deadly into English.



your brother,

Afdhere
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: TheNabi on September 21, 2003, 07:11:43 PM
Peace All

I tend to agree with Afdhere that the Messengers sent to the town in which Lot resided were Angels.

Has the story of Abraham?s noble guests come to you? When they came to him, they said: ?Peace.? He said: ?Peace to you, strangers!? Then he turned to his family and brought a roasted fat calf. When he offered it to them, he said: ?Do you not eat?? He then became fearful of them. They said: ?Do not fear,? and they gave good news of a knowledgeable son. His wife then came forward in astonishment. Noting her wrinkled face: ?I am a sterile old woman? They said: ?Thus it has been said by your Lord. He is the Wise, the Knowledgeable." He said: ?What is your mission, O messengers?? They said: ?We have been sent to a criminal people. To send down upon them rocks of clay. Marked by your Lord for the transgressors.? (51:24-34)

These Messengers did not have bodies with which they ate the nourishment that sustains humans. These Messengers were also sent to send on the destruction of Lot's towns people. This is not to say human Messengers did not also bring punishments because Moses did.

Take care.

Joe
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: zenje on September 21, 2003, 07:17:20 PM
Peace Afdhere,
Here's the verse (and then some) I quoted in reference to your 'hadith is not whacked' comment...

The hypocrites seek to deceive God, while He is deceiving them; and if they rise to the Salat, they do so lazily, only to show the people; they do not remember God except very little.  (4:142)
They are swaying in-between, neither belonging to this group nor to that group. Whoever God will misguide, you will not find for him a way. (4:143)


Here's the full verse of what you quoted... (which you conveniently posted less than half of it!

And those who if they spend they do not exaggerate nor become stingy, but they are in a measure between that. (25:67)

 :?:

PS - I don't follow Rashad Khalifa's translation/interpratation of the Qur'an, nor arab culture
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 21, 2003, 08:48:23 PM
Salam, Joe,

Yes, but they did take the form of humans... since the people of Lot were rushing to them :)

By the way, Moses didn't do anything to destroy the Egyptians. His work was limited to the miracle. For example, at the sea, God tells him to beat his staff on the sea... and it parts, but he doesn't close it. For a man to destroy another man, it would 'contradict' the phrase "I'm no more than a human" :)

It is actually interesting when you think about it. God always allows the window for doubt. Hence, everything Moses did could be something by magic... as far as the non-believers were concerned.




your brother,

Afdhere
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 21, 2003, 08:55:49 PM
Peace to you, Zenj,

The verse was half, as I noted the dots... "..."

Anyway, the verse was to highlight that those who truly, without agenda, follow God are not extremists :) That doesn't mean they are hypocrites or people who compromise in the belief in God and following God alone.

Whether we like it or not, Qur'an was sent to an Arab man, through which God chose to send Mercy. To deal with him, and his people, God would clean them and their culture. The Qur'an has many references which have nothing to do with any other people.



your brother,

Afdhere
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: TheNabi on September 21, 2003, 09:00:28 PM
Peace Afdhere

So do you think that the human Messengers only bring signs and/or summons, and it is the Angel Messengers who bring the destruction and the death as well as summons?

I know Moses brought about 11 signs, including the Scripture, which makes 12, or more, if you consider the signs in the Scripture.

The servant of God that Moses met in 18:60-82, was an Angel who did bring destruction, but not a sign or summons as did the Angels who came to Abraham and Lot.

Quote
For a man to destroy another man, it would 'contradict' the phrase "I'm no more than a human"


How about the taking of human life period (17:33) except in the case of self-defense, when the necessity is unavoidable, or in war? It would go against this too right?

Joe
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 21, 2003, 09:34:54 PM
Peace to you, too, Joe,

The Messengers seem to take different roles, both humans and angels. Although I'm only aware of two roles 'messenger' and 'prophet', for the human, it seems the angels have all sorts of roles from just taking the souls at night to destroying nations.

The human messenger, regardless what role he or she takes, seems to be only a nadeer/warner. Even when such messengers seem to have a violent history, like Muhammad or David, it seems it is their role as member of the community... rather than the messenger. (there is a story about Muhammad changing his mind about a battle based on another Muslim's idea.)

And, also, Moses' plagues; the ones he personally delivers seem to be safe for the humans... compared to the ones God delivers (like the death, the merging of the sea, etc.)

In other words, while part of the warning may include violence ... it is againt non-humans and/or safe for the human (like Abraham destroying the gods, Solomon moving things with the blink of an eye, et cetera.)


Quote
How about the taking of human life period (17:33) except in the case of self-defense, when the necessity is unavoidable, or in war? It would go against this too right?



That is a separate issue. All humans -- including messengers, as mentioned -- are capable of violence, whether "just" or "unjust." I'm talking about things Messengers do as Messengers. A human Messenger has no business destroying people as a Messenger ... or using his powers (a good example is Solomon, who althought he had powers that literally couuld turn cities upside down, he usually went to war with his enemies with swords... because that was his job as a King of Israel... rather than Prophet of God :) )



your brother,

Afdhere
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: AaRoN on September 21, 2003, 11:05:01 PM
peace

joe:
Quote
These Messengers did not have bodies with which they ate the nourishment that sustains humans. These Messengers were also sent to send on the destruction of Lot's towns people. This is not to say human Messengers did not also bring punishments because Moses did.


they never said "we are angels we don't eat food" they just declined the offer of food at that time.

never had anyone over to your house and offered them something and they reply "no thanks, i can't stay long"?

Quote
The servant of God that Moses met in 18:60-82, was an Angel who did bring destruction, but not a sign or summons as did the Angels who came to Abraham and Lot.


?

--

afdhere:
Quote
And what do you mean doctors? The 'attendants'/tabi`eena ... (the world literally means; those who follow them around lol) ... refers to the males who guarded the Arab women when the Qur'an came to them. For example, according to Muslim and non-Muslim reports, Muhammad's own wives had such men. They were exactly what today we call a gay man: men who have no sexual desires for women.


so who does it refer to now?

Quote
Yes, but they did take the form of humans


what form do they normally take?

Quote
(there is a story about Muhammad changing his mind about a battle based on another Muslim's idea.)


hmm, one can on guess at the body of work containing such a story. :roll:

Quote
Note the word: DISCOURAGED.


i'd say relating a story about how certain people indulging in a practice were showered with rocks is also discouragement.

Quote
As for two men marrying each other; this is nonesense... since the reason marriage exists in Islam is something impossible between men; offspring. Hence, it doesn't make sense why Marriage is a question for queer Muslims. Marriage has become a rather "cute" thing for humans... which makes the average human - queer or otherwise - desire such institution.


you think marriage exists solely for the purpose of producing offspring?
please, read again.

Quote
So, what was the point... pray tell?


the point is: if i don't trust hadith, what makes you think i trust what "jewish history" tells us?
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 22, 2003, 12:18:51 AM
Peace to you, Aaron,

Oh Lord... :roll:


Quote
so who does it refer to now?


Didn't I just say "They were exactly what today we call a gay man: men who have no sexual desires for women."? :?


Quote
what form do they normally take?


Usually, they are probably just spirits. But we know they appear to humans and Jinns (demons.) And of course to whomever they appear, they would appear that form.


Quote
hmm, one can on guess at the body of work containing such a story.


Hadiths, Tabari's "The Victory of Islam," Waraq's "Muhammad's House" -- among others....


Quote
i'd say relating a story about how certain people indulging in a practice were showered with rocks is also discouragement.


Ok... now you sound like extremist :-P are you comparing drinking (which is personal "problem") to rape and robery(which hurts others)? The most "direct" verse in the Qur'an about intoxicant that really affects Muslim is the one with "do not go near salat while intoxicated... ", which pretty casts a whole cast... that there are times when it is allowed ;-)

By the way, I'm someone who doesn't use any form of intoxicants (coffeine included)... but nevertheless... :)


Quote
you think marriage exists solely for the purpose of producing offspring? please, read again. [/quore]

:roll: Again, about that "cute" idealogy? Nikkah (wedlock) ... (dallaqah)... or divorce... 'iddah (period)... all are words connected with children....

In Islam, a couple's need to terminate a marriage (divorce) is not valid until the woman waits three cycles of menstruation. And if there to be a child, the husband does not need to remarry her. On the other hand, if she is without a child... he can't remarry her unless another man marries her first.

Men are told they can marry up to four wives in the qur'an. Some scholars have argued those are only mothers of orphans, but nevertheless. Women are not allowed.

Aaron, excuse my language but what the heck without "children" is marriage? :shock:


Quote
the point is: if i don't trust hadith, what makes you think i trust what "jewish history" tells us?


In terms of what you should "trust," you shouldn't trust anything then :) Since you are quoting the Qur'an, I assume you "trust" it. The Hadith -- regardless of what you think of them -- are any more "untrustworthy" than the Qur'an. Have you read a Qur'an before the Qur'an... Or did you write one with your own right hand (from God)?

Why do you trust the Qur'an more than the Hadith? Because the Qur'an -- as you probably know it (mas-haf) -- has appeared to the non-Muslim a few decades after Muhammad's death... as opposed to the Hadith which appears to non-Muslim 200 years later?

Or perhaps, you think the entire Muslims who lived at the time of the Hadith's printing were all unbelieving bunch... whom God forsake for you? :shock:

The problem with folks who discredit all of the Hadiths is that they forget the same arguments can be used against the Qur'an. :roll:

When we "free" minds, we should free them fairly ;-) ... Not pick and choose.



your brother,

Afdhere
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: TheNabi on September 22, 2003, 04:30:48 AM
Peace Aaron

Quote
they never said "we are angels we don't eat food" they just declined the offer of food at that time.

never had anyone over to your house and offered them something and they reply "no thanks, i can't stay long"?


Yes people may decline food, etc, but Aaron have you ever seen the host get frightened because their guests do not eat?

Also they were not there for a short period, they did convey information and news to Abraham while they were there before setting out to destroy the town.

This is why I say they were not men.

Quote
?


Let me give the narrative.

And Moses said to his youth: ?I will not stop until I reach the junction of the two seas, or I spend a lifetime trying.? But when they did reach the junction between, they forgot their fish, and it was able to make its way back to the sea in a stream. And when they had passed further on, he said to his youth: ?Bring us our lunch; we have found much fatigue in this journey of ours.? He said: ?Do you remember when we rested upon the rock? I forgot the fish, and it was the devil that made me forget to remember it. It made its way back to the sea amazingly!? He said: ?That is what we have been seeking!? So they went back retracing their steps. So they came upon a servant of Ours whom We had given him mercy from Us and We taught him knowledge from Us. Moses said to him: ?Can I follow you so that you will teach me from the guidance you have been taught?? He said: ?You will not be able to have patience with me. And how can you be patient about that which you have not been given any news?? He said: ?You will find me, God willing, to be patient. And I will not disobey any command of yours.? He said: ?If you follow me, then do not ask about anything until I relate it to you.? So they ventured forth until they rode in a boat and he made a hole in it. He said: ?Did you make a hole in it to drown its people? You have done something dreadful!? He said: ?Did I not tell you that you will not be able to have patience with me?? He said: ?Forgive me for what I forgot, and do not be hard upon my request with you.? So they ventured forth until they came upon a youth, and he killed him. He said: ?Have you killed an innocent person without justice? You have truly come with something awful!?  He said: ?Did I not tell you that you will not be able to have patience with me?? He said: ?If I ask you about anything after this, then do not keep me in your company. You will then have a reason over me.? So they ventured forth until they came to the people of a town. They requested food from its people but they refused to host them. Then they found a wall which was close to collapsing, so he built it. He said: ?If you wished, you could have asked a wage for it!? He said: ?For this, we will now part ways. I will inform you of the meanings of those things that you could not have patience over. As for the boat, it belonged to some poor people who were working the sea, so I wanted to damage it as there was a king coming who takes every boat by force. And as for the youth, his parents were believers, so we feared that he would oppress them by his transgression and disbelief. So we wanted their Lord to replace for them with one who is better than him in purity and closer to mercy. And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphaned boys in the city, and underneath it was a treasure for them, and their father was a good man, so your Lord wanted that they would reach their maturity and take out their treasure as a mercy from your Lord. And none of what I did was of my own accord. That is the meaning of what you could not have patience for.? (18:60-82)

How many humans have you heard of that were given such authority by God to take a mans life, and knew so much of these people's personal lives before they destroyed them?

Take care.

Joe
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: mquran on September 22, 2003, 05:08:50 AM
Salaamun alaikum Afdhere,

Sorry for my late reply. Work commitments, Im afraid.

Quote
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.


No problem there, as usual I respect your view. To me, hadeeth is a hindrance in the path towards understanding al-quraan.

Quote
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.)


So the gender of the offered 'daughters' doesn't come into it ?

If zawj is the word denoting a 'love-based' partnership, is there a partnership in the Quraan which isn't love-based ?

Could you elaborate further please ? I think you're on to something here but at this point, I cannot decipher it.

thanks.
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: AaRoN on September 22, 2003, 08:15:24 AM
peace

afdhere:
Quote
Aaron, excuse my language but what the heck without "children" is marriage?


oh i never said that children is not part of the purpose, i just don't think it is the sole purpose.

since you think marriage is for children, and only something "cute" people do, does this mean you are for or against proposed legislation in canada to allow for gay marriage?

Quote
Why do you trust the Qur'an more than the Hadith? Because the Qur'an -- as you probably know it (mas-haf) -- has appeared to the non-Muslim a few decades after Muhammad's death... as opposed to the Hadith which appears to non-Muslim 200 years later?


i believe the contents of the Quran to be divinely inspired. the more i learn about Quran, the more i believe this to be true.

Quote
The problem with folks who discredit all of the Hadiths is that they forget the same arguments can be used against the Qur'an.


anyone is free to believe whatever they want about Quran, arguments or otherwise.

Quote
When we "free" minds, we should free them fairly  ... Not pick and choose.


yes, so instead of picking and choosing which extra-Quranic hadith to discard as divine guidance, i thought it pretty fair to discard them all and rely on Quran.

Quote
Usually, they are probably just spirits. But we know they appear to humans and Jinns (demons.) And of course to whomever they appear, they would appear that form.


usually...probably...sounds definitive to me!
jinns are demons?

--

i find your argument based on arabic culture weak, as i am of those who believe that the divine message has always been the same, just through different messengers. so i don't believe that the message was altered for cultures. sure, alot of people have told me "oh, well the arabs of the time did this" and "the arabs of the time did that", but i wasn't there, and my aim is to apply Quran in this time. for them is what they earned, and for me is what i will earn, after all. :)

--

joe:
Quote
Yes people may decline food, etc, but Aaron have you ever seen the host get frightened because their guests do not eat?


do not ever or did not at that time?

Quote
Also they were not there for a short period, they did convey information and news to Abraham while they were there before setting out to destroy the town.


how long were they there?

Quote
How many humans have you heard of that were given such authority by God to take a mans life, and knew so much of these people's personal lives before they destroyed them?


well, isn't that what we are questioning? :)

i was just askin about the moses' companion and the angel thing because i saw the same conclusion 'reached' on 19.org forum and it seems alot to me like reachin point E without havin gone through points B, C and D.
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: zenje on September 22, 2003, 08:46:41 AM
Quote
The problem with folks who discredit all of the Hadiths is that they forget the same arguments can be used against the Qur'an.  

umm.. no u can't. And if you trust Qur'an to be the word of God, then I dont see how you can follow hadith, considering what the Qur'an tells you about it! :) (please visit the site and other threads for more on this beaten argument)
Quote
When we "free" minds, we should free them fairly  ... Not pick and choose.

hmm... I think you're the one picking/choosing between this hadith and that!.. whatever's suitable.
We freed our minds all the way baby, yeah!  :D
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 22, 2003, 08:53:23 AM
Peace, Joe,

Well said. :)
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 22, 2003, 09:11:10 AM
Wasalam, Mquran,

I don't expect replies :) So it is alright.


Quote
To me, hadeeth is a hindrance in the path towards understanding al-quraan.


That depends on how the reader looks at Hadith. I certainly believe that is the case when the traditional Muslim looks at it perfectly inspired. (The majority of Muslims believe the "Authentic"/"Sahih" Hadith are devinely inspired and pure.) That is a very dangerous route.

On the other hand, those who look at the Hadith as complete "Satanic" are also on a dangerous route.

As far as I'm concerned, the Hadith are the history of early Muslims, begining with Muhammad. It is Human history, which means it is full of errors. But it should be noted that there are most certainly stuff in the Qur'an that God mentions in passing (like all the wrong things Muhammad does, for example) ... where the Hadiths lays out in detail.

As a human -- and a being that is naturally 'curious' -- I wanna know what "wives" made the dude see something lawful as unlawful. I wanna know what "wife" he was supposed to take after Zaid. I wanna know--- well, you get the picture ;-) What can I say.... I love drama lol.

When people like Bukhari went around collecting the Hadith, they didn't intend to collect another Qur'an (though that is certainly the case now with many Muslims... sigh... ) but rather for people like me who had NO idea what the world was like for Muhammad -- the man who recieved the Qur'an -- to understand his life... his times... how people thought, etc.

You must understand, the Messengers of God are nothing but humans like you and me. God would NEVER communicate with them on a different level. And, believe it or not, I'm far intelligent today than Muhammad was... as a man, as you are... as the next dude in today's world is. If the Qur'an was revealed to you or me or someone else living today, it would be totally a different Qur'an. If nothing else, you would see lots of lawsuits in the Qur'an :lol:


Quote
So the gender of the offered 'daughters' doesn't come into it ?


Yes, it does. There is no point in 'subjegating' women in that time. They already were. It was the men that were humiliated and abused.



Quote
If zawj is the word denoting a 'love-based' partnership, is there a partnership in the Quraan which isn't love-based ? Could you elaborate further please ? I think you're on to something here but at this point, I cannot decipher it.


I'm sure you mean 'romantic' love. And, yes, there are relationships without love. For example, Muhammad was asked to marry a woman... to make a point. It had nothing to do with love. Also, men are allowed to marry up to four wives, though God tells us that a man cannot love more than one since God only gave him one heart. As mentioned above, there are scholars that argue those 3 other women are supposed to be the mothers of orphans (as was the case with the early Muslims) ... which certainly means they were not in love with them at all. Just to be fathers to those children... and/or to give them more children.

That said, certainly zawj applies -- i said before -- to anyone who is a significent other to you, wheter you love them or not. Zawj is the consenting [romantic] relationship between two beings.


Hope I didn't confuse you further :?:
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 22, 2003, 09:37:12 AM
Peace, Aaron,


Quote
oh i never said that children is not part of the purpose, i just don't think it is the sole purpose. since you think marriage is for children, and only something "cute" people do, does this mean you are for or against proposed legislation in canada to allow for gay marriage?



:roll: It is not "part" it is almost all of it. If you can't end a marriage without first knowing if the woman is pregnant, and you have the option to not end it if she becomes pregnant, and if she becomes pregnant you no longer have any authority in the marriage, what is there left? :shock:

Let me "break" it to you:

a) if you get divorced, you must wait three months before that woman can remarry....
b) if that woman is found pregnant during that time, you can still stay maried NO questions asked, if both of you still want it....
c) if she is found clear without pregnancy, you CANNOT still stay married, no matter if you have tears of blood, unless/untill she remarries and gets divorced from that man....

This is not from the Hadiths. It is from the Qur'an. Since to end it requires the knowledge of children, the entire contract known as marriage solely depends on children. Give me a break, Aaron :)


On the second half, yes I'm personally against people getting married for any purpose outside of children. If there is a woman who is incapable of having children, because all of the material is removed (as is the case with certain cancers,) I do NOT believe that woman has ANY burdens on her to get married whatsoever.

That said, I wouldn't stop anyone from marrying... any more than I would stop anyone from becoming non-Muslim. As a human being, my job is to worry about me... and to tell people what I think, not force them (as is the case with America know, which seeks to "ban" it.) To ban it is oppressive. To promote it beside the legality of it is simply ignorance and following the "cute" message man has stamped on it :P


Quote
i believe the contents of the Quran to be divinely inspired. the more i learn about Quran, the more i believe this to be true. anyone is free to believe whatever they want about Quran, arguments or otherwise. yes, so instead of picking and choosing which extra-Quranic hadith to discard as divine guidance, i thought it pretty fair to discard them all and rely on Quran.


Uh huh. Ok, which Qur'an, again? The mas-haf? :lol: Did you know that the third Khalif, Uthman, ordered the burning of lots of different versions of this same Qur'an? Do you know there are still surviving versions? In Iran, for example, they have Qur'an just as old as the 'major' one... which is, uhm, different :)

If you think Islam is entirely the Qur'an or the Hadith, you have another one coming. Islam is the relationship one has with God, regardless whatever text. Your job as the human is to investigate these texts... reflecting on their cultures and different meanings of same words... and all of its imperfectness.

To go ahead and just choose not one but translation/interpretation of one and call it a day... is simply... well, another "cute" thing humans like :) You see, humans are lazy hehe. They always like the easy way ;-)


Quote
usually...probably...sounds definitive to me! jinns are demons?



Nothing is definite. And, yes, Jinns are Demons. It is just that like "Allah", folks make it sound "different." :)


Quote
i find your argument based on arabic culture weak, as i am of those who believe that the divine message has always been the same, just through different messengers. so i don't believe that the message was altered for cultures. sure, alot of people have told me "oh, well the arabs of the time did this" and "the arabs of the time did that", but i wasn't there, and my aim is to apply Quran in this time. for them is what they earned, and for me is what i will earn, after all.


This is funny... because assuming you read the Qur'an, you know in the Qur'an the camels are allowed for Arab Muslims of that time... as they were also allowed to pass off the Sabbath... etc? Do you think Camels became more cute since Israel? Or that God just that "nah, it is okay" about the Sabbath?

In Arizona, I once helped this Muslim go back to his faith of birth (Islam) and we got to the verse that talks about the camels and he was like ... "What is that?" Shall I give you more examples... of how the Qur'an is Arabic-culture based? :roll: I know your approach is cute and all... and even amusing... but, Aaron, :)
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 22, 2003, 09:41:23 AM
Zenj,


LOL :lol: Please don't hurt yourself with your freed mind now ;-)
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: Damon on September 22, 2003, 10:39:35 AM
Peace family,

Quote
Joe wrote:
Yes people may decline food, etc, but Aaron have you seen the host get frightened because their guests do not eat?


That verse, as far as I am able to read it, does not say that he got frightened because his guests declined his offer for food and drink. One may get frightened due to the manner one declines an offer. And, more importantly, I think he became nervous because he is now wondering who they are and what is the reason they have come to see him.

But my interpretation, like everyone elses, has an equal chance of being incorrect and perhaps Joe and afdhere may have the correct way of viewing it.

But I would like to point out that there are quite a few verses where GOD speaks of the angels by name( Malakai) and tells of specific things that these "angels" are doing. I cannot believe that GOD would not tell us these were angels that he sent to Lot and Sodom. At least not without saying that they were angels who took the form of men, like the one sent to Mary Jesus' mother.

To Aaron and Zenje,

I've been following the argument very closely for the past two days now concerning afdhere's position on hadith and his sexual preference.

From dealing with DoctorNo, we all know by now that when someone has his or her mind made up on something they believe or disbelieve(which includes us here at free-minds), then there is nothing we can do to have them see otherwise.

While following and keeping track of the argument I've been paying close attention to the logic that afdhere is operating on. That's something I've grown quite used to now.

No offense intended towards afdhere and if an offense is taken, my humblest apologies. But I'll have to be honest, from your interprations of scripture to your opinions concerning the place Arab culture has in our present day circumstances I see all of your arguments to be weak, baseless and somewhat manipulative.

Whenever we as human beings take a position on something and we firmly believe in it, we will do whatever we can to defend it and try to convince others that there is nothing wrong with our viewpoints and/or understandings.

I'm sure everyone here is able to detect my position on homosexuality or bisexuality.

Am I saying that those who are homosexual or bisexual are going to hell?

No, I'm not saying that because told us the only unforgivable(if we die in that state) is idolworship.

But when someone has made a concsience decision to engage in adultery, fornication and homosexual/bisexual acts and still calls him or herself a servant of GOD, I think that type of person is playing a very dangerous game.

My opinion and of course since I'm a student of life ans still have alot to learn I realize my opinion can actually be proven faulty.

Peace all, take care.

Damon.
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 22, 2003, 11:23:07 AM
Peace, Damon,

:roll: Lord have Mercy.

First of, I'm someone who does not really have much Arab culture. I don't eat all red meat, for example :) And that includes the cute camels the Arabs dulge(d) in ;-) ... and I could give you many other lists ...

NEVERTHELESS... those stuff are int he Qur'an :roll: In many parts of the world, nobody eats camels :( Why did God include it then? :shock: Because there is a story behind it ;-).... which is certainly NOT in the Qur'an.

The Jews in Arabia told the early Muslims that they shouldn't eat camels :) That they should observe the Sabbath :) That they should have unlimited prayers :) That they should.... Well... You get the point :-P

And I'm gonna go be a little bit more manipulative and have me some TURKEY (which Arabs don't have lol) for lunch :-P
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: zenje on September 22, 2003, 12:27:15 PM
afdhere,
Quote
In many parts of the world, nobody eats camels :(   Why did God include it then? :shock:

If it's not too much trouble, would you mind quoting a verse? Thanks.
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 22, 2003, 01:15:13 PM
Peace, Zenj,

Here is one verse:

[22.36] And (as for) the camels, We have made them of the signs of the religion of Allah for you; for you therein is much good; therefore mention the name of Allah on them as they stand in a row, then when they fall down eat of them and feed the poor man who is contented and the beggar; thus have We made them subservient to you, that you may be grateful.

As far as I know, there are over 15 mentions of camels, including places where God takes them  'mathal' or example... as "camel to go through needle" -- such example does not make sense to someone who has no clue about camels.



Afdhere
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: zenje on September 22, 2003, 02:47:01 PM
Peace Afdher,
er... thanks for the verse, although I have it as;
And the animals used for offering We have made for you from the rites of God, in them is good for you. So mention God?s name upon them in succession, so once they are offered, then eat from them and give food to the poor and the needy. It was thus that We have made them in service to you, that you may be thankful.[22:36]
Nevertheless, the point you were putting across earlier is,
Quote
In many parts of the world, nobody eats camels  Why did God include it then?
 
First of all, camel is eaten in different parts of Africa (not just by muslims there, plus, none of the other ("15") instances mentioned in the Qur'an talk about eating the camel) Secondly, Camels are all over the world, whether they are eaten or not, it's really the choice of the individual, not cultural. So what's the deal with you and camels now?  :wink:
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: mquran on September 22, 2003, 02:49:23 PM
Salaamun alaikum again Afdhere


Quote
On the other hand, those who look at the Hadith as complete "Satanic" are also on a dangerous route.


Well, I didn't want to focus on this, but as a brother pointed out, not answering can be tantamount to admitting ones mistake, I will answer.

Please tell me a single hadith which, if I consider to be satanic, will affect my understanding of al-quraan.
 

Quote
As far as I'm concerned, the Hadith are the history of early Muslims, begining with Muhammad. It is Human history, which means it is full of errors. But it should be noted that there are most certainly stuff in the Qur'an that God mentions in passing (like all the wrong things Muhammad does, for example) ... where the Hadiths lays out in detail.


The history of human al-muslimeen began when Allah said 'I will place a khalifa in the earth' (2/30). Your definition of 'muslim' is Arab-centric.


Quote
As a human -- and a being that is naturally 'curious' -- I wanna know what "wives" made the dude see something lawful as unlawful. I wanna know what "wife" he was supposed to take after Zaid. I wanna know--- well, you get the picture ;-) What can I say.... I love drama lol.


Well, lets see what the Quraan says to that:

O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. But if ye ask about things when the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, God will forgive those: for God is Oft- forgiving, Most Forbearing. (33/37)

As for drama, surely Dallas or Dynasty will suffice ?


Quote
When people like Bukhari went around collecting the Hadith, they didn't intend to collect another Qur'an (though that is certainly the case now with many Muslims... sigh... ) but rather for people like me who had NO idea what the world was like for Muhammad -- the man who recieved the Qur'an -- to understand his life... his times... how people thought, etc.


How people thought or how whoever related that hadith WANTED US TO BELIEVE how they thought ?

Manipulated perceptions come in real handy. Ask the Christian polemecists when they use hadith. They LOVE Bukhari.

Quote
You must understand, the Messengers of God are nothing but humans like you and me. God would NEVER communicate with them on a different level. And, believe it or not, I'm far intelligent today than Muhammad was... as a man, as you are... as the next dude in today's world is. If the Qur'an was revealed to you or me or someone else living today, it would be totally a different Qur'an. If nothing else, you would see lots of lawsuits in the Qur'an :lol:


Actually, the Quran IS being related on us today itself (11/120, look out for the phrase 'naqussu ala'). The problem is, there's an extra-quranic corpus of text blocking that organic process. Historicising the Quran, as it were.



Quote
Yes, it does. There is no point in 'subjegating' women in that time. They already were. It was the men that were humiliated and abused.


Sorry, Im not getting this. I will reread your article again.


Quote
I'm sure you mean 'romantic' love. And, yes, there are relationships without love. For example, Muhammad was asked to marry a woman... to make a point. It had nothing to do with love. Also, men are allowed to marry up to four wives, though God tells us that a man cannot love more than one since God only gave him one heart. As mentioned above, there are scholars that argue those 3 other women are supposed to be the mothers of orphans (as was the case with the early Muslims) ... which certainly means they were not in love with them at all. Just to be fathers to those children... and/or to give them more children.


Yes, these ladies could be 'maa malakat aimaan'.

Quote
That said, certainly zawj applies -- i said before -- to anyone who is a significent other to you, wheter you love them or not. Zawj is the consenting [romantic] relationship between two beings.


Im beginning not to think so now. I think zawjiyya is related to a one-one relationships only. Please see 30/21 where the word 'ilaiha', a singular form is used despite plurals being used throughout.

My humble suggestions are also to look up rijaal and nisaa usage in the Quraan. I do not believe these are related to physical gender alone.

thanks for your input.
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 22, 2003, 03:26:50 PM
Peace, Zenj,

Ok... see this is a good example :roll: The word BUDN... refers only the sacrificial camels and oxen/cows, but more than anything refers to the camels. Not sheep, not goat or any other animal.

Of all the crappy translators out there, only khalifa translates as "animals." Just like he translates dammir in 22:27 as "various exhausted (means of transportation)" .. hmph! The word means lean camels... which people ride because they don't get tired easily :-P

Camel was not eaten in Africa until Islam arrived. In fact, most of Africa didn't even use camels until Arabs came. And who are the people who eat camels outside of Muslims? And Muslim-influenced lands?

By the way, I was talking about my friend -- who was an Arizonan Indian... who didn't even HEARD of camels... let alone eat them.
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 22, 2003, 04:02:47 PM
Wasalam, Mquran,

Quote
Please tell me a single hadith which, if I consider to be satanic, will affect my understanding of al-quraan.


What about the Hadith in Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 162 -- which talks about Umm Salamah and her "gay" attendant who shows too much not-so-faggy feelings? 24:31's "male attendants" without that Hadith (and other historical records) is like... uhm... so confusing. Hey look just in this thread :lol:


Quote
The history of human al-muslimeen began when Allah said 'I will place a khalifa in the earth' (2/30). Your definition of 'muslim' is Arab-centric.


You know what I mean. I'm talking about the people who believed in Muhammad, hence Muhammad and after. Besides, nobody calls themselves Muslims but those people... so...


And funny ... about your mentioning of asking the questioning when the Qur'an is revealed. I don't think I hear anybody revealing any Qur'an now :) Besides, people were questioning like "What is ROUH? What does it look like?" Much like some of the people in this thread who want to know if the Angels are women :lol:


Quote
How people thought or how whoever related that hadith WANTED US TO BELIEVE how they thought ? Manipulated perceptions come in real handy. Ask the Christian polemecists when they use hadith. They LOVE Bukhari.


Now surely you don't think all the thousands of different narrators in all the different hadith books (six main ones, with tons of smaller ones)... have all come together to plot a "way" of thinking? Isn't that a little bit too paranoid? Come on now...

If I follow your logic, I must disbelieve in all of history and call it satanic. With that kind of logic, no wonder we have people who live in the seventh century :roll: We have people exactly like you in the Muslim world... they are just on the opposite side "All history is corrupted by the bad, bad Jews and Chrsitians" :lol:


And you didn't get my point about certain parts of the Qur'an being frozen in certain times... unless people keep it alive (like Camels :lol: )

Quote
Yes, these ladies could be 'maa malakat aimaan'.


No, that can never be azwaaj :) Why? Because it is not permenant. If the person chooses to become Muslim, they automatically become free. Or if someone else frees them :shock: Then... it is "bye, bye" :(

Hence, why the Qur'an always says; "before their azwaaj... OR... maa malakat aimaanihim" (see Sura 23, for example.)


Quote
Im beginning not to think so now. I think zawjiyya is related to a one-one relationships only. Please see 30/21 where the word 'ilaiha', a singular form is used despite plurals being used throughout.


Right... but that is because God mentions "love" in that verse. As I mentioned before, we only got one heart ... as God says :)


Quote
My humble suggestions are also to look up rijaal and nisaa usage in the Quraan. I do not believe these are related to physical gender alone.


Well, it is certainly more than the genders, that is for sure. Because you will see in instances where "among"/"from" is used for certain males and females (24:60 is a good example.)



your brother,

Afdhere
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: zenje on September 22, 2003, 06:44:20 PM
Afdher,
Do you know the Turkana? Or perhaps the Bukusu? umm they eat camel,(actually they eat pretty much what comes their way!) and they have no idea what Islam or arabs or light bulb is!
I am from Africa, you?

Quote
By the way, I was talking about my friend -- who was an Arizonan Indian... who didn't even HEARD of camels... let alone eat them.

I guess he hasn't heard of spoon either! :lol:

None of this has anything to do with the culture you talk about. Try another one. :wink:
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 22, 2003, 07:15:18 PM
Peace, Zenj,

Oh my God. OF all the Africans to choose, you chose Kenyans? By the way, just out of curousity, do you know what Turkana means? What about the word Baluyia, the mother nation of the Bukusites? By the way, I once had a boyfriend who was Babatakho and I used to say "OMG! :shock: You are from a people who are called TAKAKA"(Kiswahili word for "garbage," in case you don't know Swahili.)

ANYWAY, not to jump off the issue at hand, the Kenyans don't know Arabs? ROFL! :lol: This is people whose national language is based on Arabic. LORD have Mercy.


Yes, I'm African... who travelled to every African nation except one. And, of course, insha Allah, I will travel to the remaining one as well.

By the way, about my Native American friend, he actually lived one of the most industralised cities in the country; Phoenix, where he was born and raised.
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 22, 2003, 07:18:38 PM
Ooops... The above swahili word is actually Takataka... :-P And I forgot to say that I used to say "Chokora mbiba... unta tooka Whabi? TAKATAKA, sindiyo?" (Street gangsta... where are you from? Garbage, right?) lol :lol:


Afdhere
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: zenje on September 22, 2003, 07:49:58 PM
See?... this is the problem when the info you get is wholely from internet!  :lol:
The turkana and bukusu have no Islamic influence! They were there (with those camels before the arabs dropped in!)

Quote
"Chokora mbiba... unta tooka Whabi? TAKATAKA, sindiyo?"
:lol:  there's no such words as mbiba, unta, tooka or whabi in swahili!  :lol:
Chokora Pipa means to search through a garbage bin! But street "gangsta" (no such thing in kenya - theyre called parking boys)...
those are simply nicknamed chokoras.

So this his how you get your audience! By throwing jumbled up half thruths and they think - woooaahhh, he must know what he's talking about! Yeah, tell me more about kenyan tribes! :lol:  Babatakho is not a Kenyan tribe/clan... either you were misinformed, or as usual misinforming!  Just keep going... show your ignorance! :lol:

Quote
ANYWAY, not to jump off the issue at hand, the Kenyans don't know Arabs?


I didnt say Kenyans... check the post again!
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: TheNabi on September 22, 2003, 07:59:49 PM
Peace Aaron   :D

Quote
do not ever or did not at that time?


Well it was at that particular time. When I read the passage it seems to me as if Abraham is suprised/scared because the messengers do not eat.

But when he saw that their hands did not go towards it, he (1) mistrusted them, and (2) he began to have fear of them. They said: ?Have no fear, we have been sent to the people of Lot.? (11:70)

I think about it like this. Abraham was a smart fellow. Of course he knows that people eat. If someone were to decline an offer of food when visiting another's house you would not think that they do not eat. You also would not think to get scared/alarmed like Abraham did.

Then he pops the question: 'Do you not eat?'

Quote
how long were they there?


Has the story of Abraham?s noble guests come to you? When they came to him, they said: ?Peace.? He said: ?Peace to you, strangers!? Then he turned to his family and brought a roasted fat calf. When he offered it to them, he said: ?Do you not eat?? He then became fearful of them. They said: ?Do not fear,? and they gave good news of a knowledgeable son. His wife then came forward in astonishment. Noting her wrinkled face: ?I am a sterile old woman? They said: ?Thus it has been said by your Lord. He is the Wise, the Knowledgeable." He said: ?What is your mission, O messengers?? They said: ?We have been sent to a criminal people. To send down upon them rocks of clay. Marked by your Lord for the transgressors.? (51:24-34)

And Our messengers came to Abraham with good news, they said: ?Peace? He said: ?Peace,? and it was not long before he came back with a roasted calf. But when he saw that their hands did not go towards it, he mistrusted them, and he began to have fear of them. They said: ?Have no fear, we have been sent to the people of Lot.? And his wife was standing, so she laughed when We gave her good news of Isaac, and after Isaac, Jacob. She said: ?O my!, how can I give birth while I am an old woman, and here is my husband an old man? This is indeed a strange thing!? They said: ?Do you wonder at the decree of God? God?s Mercy and Blessings are upon you O people of the Shrine. He is Praiseworthy, Glorious.? So when the shock left Abraham, and the good news was delivered to him, he began to argue with Us for the people of Lot. Abraham was compassionate, kind. O Abraham, turn away from this. Your Lord?s command has come, and a retribution that will not be turned back is coming for them. (11:69-76)

And inform them of Abraham?s guests. That they entered upon him, they said: ?Peace.? He said: ?We are worrisome of you.? They said: ?Do not worry, we bring you good news of a knowledgeable son.? He said: ?What good news can you bring me when old age has come upon me? Is that your good news?? They said: ?We have brought you good news with truth, so do not be of those in denial.? He said: ?And who would deny the mercy of his Lord except the misguided ones!? He said: ?What then is your business here, O messengers?? They said: ?We have been sent to a people who are criminals. Except for the family of Lot, we will save them all. Except for his wife, we have measured that she will be with those destroyed.? (15:51-60)

Aaron when I read the above passages I would figure that the guests/messengers were at Abraham's abode for some time. He brought to them a roasted calf, which may have been cooking or they may have started cooking it as the guests/messengers arrived. Also they spoke with one another on various subjects, from their mission objectives, which was to head out to Lot's town after they saw Abraham, to news of Abraham's wife having a child in the future, which Abraham and his wife both debated about.

Quote
well, isn't that what we are questioning?
 

It is. Also whether or not these guests/messengers were angels or not.

Quote
i was just askin about the moses' companion and the angel thing because i saw the same conclusion 'reached' on 19.org forum and it seems alot to me like reachin point E without havin gone through points B, C and D.


What are points B, C, and D, which you feel have been skipped over?

Take care.

Joe  :twisted:
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: zenje on September 22, 2003, 08:00:47 PM
Afdher,
Je wewe? wakifahamu kiswahili au mpaka umuulize mume wako shoga? :lol: Ikiwa wataka kuwa shoga sawa, hatu katai, lakini usiwambie watu wengine ni sawa na ni kufuata dini!  :P
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 22, 2003, 09:26:14 PM
Peace, Zenj,

I'm not interested in insulting people whether in Kiswahili or English. If you can't keep the discussion at a civilized level, that is up to you.

About the Turkana and Bukusu, like most people in the East Africa, they were influenced by the Arabs, Persians and Turks. Of course, not as immediate as the coastals... but through other tribes... like all inland tribes were. MARK my words: there were NO camel eating people until the Arabs (christians) arrived through Ethiopia. And later through Islam in the coastal Swahili. If you have other evidence to disprove that, I'm all ears.



Quote
there's no such words as mbiba, unta, tooka or whabi in swahili!  
Chokora Pipa means to search through a garbage bin! But street "gangsta" (no such thing in kenya - theyre called parking boys)...
those are simply nicknamed chokoras.


:roll: Oh Lord. Actually "unta" was typo... should have been UNA... and tooka... how do you say "from"? And whabi is "wabi" or Wabe or however anyone spells. I do not write Kiswahili... I only speak whatever words I remember from my travels in Kenya (where I lived for three years, first in Nairobi and then later in Namanag :?: and Mombasa)

*street gangstas* -- i meant the boys who who walked around in the streets of Nairobi... stealing stuff... and sometimes running off with Indian women's jewelry and what have you. In other words, MWIZI :P


Quote
Babatakho is not a Kenyan tribe/clan... either you were misinformed, or as usual misinforming! Just keep going... show your ignorance!  



:roll: Babatakho is one of the seventeen sub-tribes of Baluyia of East Africa. If not, pray tell us?

By the way, I never said that Babatakho are Kenyan tribe :-P Where did I say that? K.C. just happened to be from Kenya himself... because his father lived in Thicka, near Nairobi. I remembered them because your mentioning Bukusu, which is like perhaps the largest Baluyia.


Quote
I didnt say Kenyans... check the post again!



No, you just mentioned Kenyan tribes... who are influenced by other tribes, who are influenced by Arabs...  ;-)

As it stands right now, all of Africa is really influenced by Arabs... in more ways than Africans will ever know. For example, I was in Zambia... and saw really nomadic, bush-living people... who were still influenced... :(
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: shamsul-arefin on September 23, 2003, 05:41:23 AM
peace be upon all,

                         I am not well versed in Quran and not in arabic also.....But I do read translation and try to understand.

One thing I can say about this debate and all other is that........What are we trying to prove..?? What point are we trying to make..?

Everything is already in front of our eyes as clear as much they are confusing. Actually there is nothing to prove......It all about realization. We can never disprove something to a person unless he/she convinces him/herself to agree. So at the end it comes upon every individuals choice.

So I think all we can do is discuss having no intension to disprove someone. All we can do is share knowledge without having the intension to get something in return.

To me the best policy is to live and let live........We can agree to disagree......We can disagree but respect others freedom to have a different opinion.......

Nobody can prove anything to anyone......because "We see What we want to see.."

Remember the movie "Recruit"...?? :)  "nothing is what it seems"

Peace
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: John_From_Ohio on September 23, 2003, 06:25:40 AM
Peace,

Quote
To me the best policy is to live and let live........We can agree to disagree......We can disagree but respect others freedom to have a different opinion.......


A very good idea, and one which is very consistent with the Quran.


Quote
Nobody can prove anything to anyone......because "We see What we want to see.."


Reminds me of a quote that my mother taught me:
"A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."

Peace everyone,

John
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 23, 2003, 08:16:32 AM
Peace to you, guys,

I was just going through the responses of some people to this thread... and it is interesting how many people who respond really have nothing to say, so they just stick with the details :) You know, like "the Devil is in the details"

My arguments for these are;

a) the Qur'an came in the 7th century, and a lot of it, no matter how'not-so-cute', deal with that time

b) the Qur'an was sent to Arab people, and while God's message was ALWAYS sent to the entire world, it was always sent to ONE people. And like one can see the 365 cultures in the Bible... relating to the different cultures, times, etc ... the Qur'an has it is own.

c) when folks translate the Qur'an, they should translate with care... and with BOTH of the above facts in mind.

d) freedom begins with one's heart. No matter how 'free-minded' you are, if your thoughts about gender/sexuality/love are those of the West, you should get rid of it... if you have any real interest in the Qur'an, for however unfair it sounds, the Qur'an deals with the Arabs thoughts about those things.

Someone sent me an e-mail from here asking me what I "want" from Free-Minds.Org. What do I want? For people to think outside of their little box.

At the end of the day, we are all face our own relationship with God.

Thanks, those of you who contributed.
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: mquran on September 23, 2003, 08:52:43 AM
Salaamun alaikum Afdhere,

Since u seem to be swamped with replies, do take your time with yours to me. Im back at work tomorrow and so have not much time to continue.

Quote
What about the Hadith in Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 162 -- which talks about Umm Salamah and her "gay" attendant who shows too much not-so-faggy feelings? 24:31's "male attendants" without that Hadith (and other historical records) is like... uhm... so confusing. Hey look just in this thread :lol:


The phrase in 24/31 is simply 'ghair ulil irbaah', or 'not those with sexual vigour' . Whether this vigour is physical or psychological isn't stated. Therefore, this hadith actually limits the application of the ayat. This isn't unusual for hadith.

Quote
The history of human al-muslimeen began when Allah said 'I will place a khalifa in the earth' (2/30). Your definition of 'muslim' is Arab-centric. You know what I mean. I'm talking about the people who believed in Muhammad, hence Muhammad and after. Besides, nobody calls themselves Muslims but those people... so...


I know what you mean and I wasn't trying to be pedantic, either. The problem is, this arbitrary label of yours keeps spilling onto your discourse as well. You seem to be for the hadith of Muhammad (so-called) to be included in the Islamic corpus, yet the hadith of other civilisations be excluded. I rather the hadith of Confucian China be included if we need hadith at all. It makes much more sense than the hadith of Muhammad.

Quote
And funny ... about your mentioning of asking the questioning when the Qur'an is revealed. I don't think I hear anybody revealing any Qur'an now :) Besides, people were questioning like "What is ROUH? What does it look like?" Much like some of the people in this thread who want to know if the Angels are women :lol:


That's the problem. You look at the Quran as a dead text, a text whose time has passed. No, Al-Quraan is a living text. It gives the prediction of humanity from the beginning to the end.

Revelation is happening ON (alaa) us (3/84) through our understanding of Al-Quraan. Just last year, I had a major revelation about al-hajj and related concepts. This year, it was al-kitaab and ahlul-kitaab. Alhamdulillah. This is a living book.


Quote
Now surely you don't think all the thousands of different narrators in all the different hadith books (six main ones, with tons of smaller ones)... have all come together to plot a "way" of thinking? Isn't that a little bit too paranoid? Come on now...


You don't see the thousands of different narrators. All you see are thousands of different NAMES. Names which funnily enough people can easily appropriate for themselves. All they had to do was find a good isnaad and when Bukhari came lookin, just quote it to him. He wouldnt know it from atom.

Quote
If I follow your logic, I must disbelieve in all of history and call it satanic. With that kind of logic, no wonder we have people who live in the seventh century :roll: We have people exactly like you in the Muslim world... they are just on the opposite side "All history is corrupted by the bad, bad Jews and Chrsitians" :lol:


You got it upside down. The problem with the people in the world who call themselves 'muslims' are that they take thier definitions from an extra-quranic text. They may be 'muslim' in the sight of bukhari, but in the sight of Allah, not necessarily. They are trying to return to an imagined utopia when in fact the book is speaking to them here and now.

Quote
And you didn't get my point about certain parts of the Qur'an being frozen in certain times... unless people keep it alive (like Camels :lol: )


Hadith weren't made up yesterday. The Prophet wasn't riding a mini cooper. THis is where the aql element comes in.

Quote
Yes, these ladies could be 'maa malakat aimaan'.
No, that can never be azwaaj :) Why? Because it is not permenant. If the person chooses to become Muslim, they automatically become free. Or if someone else frees them :shock: Then... it is "bye, bye" :(



I don't believe maa malakat ayman are slaves. I believe they are ppl who are righteously under one's dominion or house. These people can have non-love based relationship with that person.

Quote
Right... but that is because God mentions "love" in that verse. As I mentioned before, we only got one heart ... as God says :)


One heart, yes. For HIM not for anyone else (33/5).


Quote
Well, it is certainly more than the genders, that is for sure. Because you will see in instances where "among"/"from" is used for certain males and females (24:60 is a good example.)


Good point. I would also point out phrases like 'nisaaul muminaat' in 48/25. 'al-muminaat' by itself would have been sufficient.

thanks and salaam.
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: AaRoN on September 23, 2003, 10:37:59 AM
peace

joe:
Quote
And inform them of Abraham?s guests. That they entered upon him, they said: ?Peace.? He said: ?We are worrisome of you.? They said: ?Do not worry, we bring you good news of a knowledgeable son.? He said: ?What good news can you bring me when old age has come upon me? Is that your good news?? They said: ?We have brought you good news with truth, so do not be of those in denial.? He said: ?And who would deny the mercy of his Lord except the misguided ones!? He said: ?What then is your business here, O messengers?? They said: ?We have been sent to a people who are criminals. Except for the family of Lot, we will save them all. Except for his wife, we have measured that she will be with those destroyed.? (15:51-60)


nice joe, there's the "we" in the last couple sentences that puts some nice evidence for your point of view. from what i see, angels tend to speak as "we". that's all i was lookin for in that case, good show :)

got anythin similar for muwsa and the fellow he met up with?
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 23, 2003, 12:19:09 PM
Wasalam, Mquran,

I'm not working much lately... so I have the time to come in and out ;-)

Quote
The phrase in 24/31 is simply 'ghair ulil irbaah', or 'not those with sexual vigour' . Whether this vigour is physical or psychological isn't stated. Therefore, this hadith actually limits the application of the ayat. This isn't unusual for hadith.


Oh, brother. OK, so in your opinion, an old guy who can't get aroused (but still gets sexually stimulated inside) is exempt here? I bet you think her father and all of these other men lack sexuality for her, physically, too, right, although they are capable physically... as is the case with the unbelievers or the sick ones amongst the believers? :roll:

It has nothing to do with physical. It has to do with psychological. A gay man cannot -- psycologically -- be roused by a woman. So, no matter how much her physical body shows... it means nothing to him, though he is very much capable physically (as the case with some gay Muslims who get married to women, for reasons other than love or sexuality.)


ALSO... the verse talks about "THEIR ATTENDANTS .... AMONGST THE MALES"(wa al tabi`iina ... min al- rijjali)

The Hadith, and other historical records, whether "limitting" or not, show who these attendants were.



Quote
I know what you mean and I wasn't trying to be pedantic, either. The problem is, this arbitrary label of yours keeps spilling onto your discourse as well. You seem to be for the hadith of Muhammad (so-called) to be included in the Islamic corpus, yet the hadith of other civilisations be excluded. I rather the hadith of Confucian China be included if we need hadith at all. It makes much more sense than the hadith of Muhammad.



Oh Lord... :roll: Are we talking about the Book of anybody else or the one sent to Muhammad? When I refer to Books sent to other people, I use their life stories (Hadith/Sunna or whatever they call them)

I'm only for the Hadith of Muhammad when discussing the Qur'an or the Book sent to Muhammad. If you see me referring to his Hadith when I'm talking about the life of Moses, or Jesus, you can tell me :)


Quote
That's the problem. You look at the Quran as a dead text, a text whose time has passed. No, Al-Quraan is a living text. It gives the prediction of humanity from the beginning to the end.  Revelation is happening ON (alaa) us (3/84) through our understanding of Al-Quraan. Just last year, I had a major revelation about al-hajj and related concepts. This year, it was al-kitaab and ahlul-kitaab. Alhamdulillah. This is a living book.


Well I don't look at the text as 'dead' ... but there are some of it that should just stay in the 7th century. I personally don't understand the need for camels today :-P but people all over the place... cling to such old things :)

On a more serious note, if your understanding of certain aspects in the Qur'an changes, it has to do with your own pre-disposed BS from cultures, etc ... not the true understanding of the Qur'an. And another thing your views may change is like I was saying before, if certain terms are not translated correctly (which people don't most of the time,) it can be a difference of day and night :(


Quote
You don't see the thousands of different narrators. All you see are thousands of different NAMES. Names which funnily enough people can easily appropriate for themselves. All they had to do was find a good isnaad and when Bukhari came lookin, just quote it to him. He wouldnt know it from atom.


Have you ever studied the history of why Hadith was put in paper? By the way, for the generations living during Bukhari's time, certain names might be "different" to them but not the Hadiths. People grew up with these oral traditions... and somebody just decided to put them in paper... because it was becoming evident that people were just starting to see them as "family tales" even though it was oral history that transcended families.

The same is true for all histories in most of the world. A really good example is the Jewish Historian, Josephus, who put down all the oral history fo the Jewish people... during his lifetime.

And even my own people -- who did not write until the 1970s -- have been ever since recording our own history in paper.

By the way, most of the Hadiths are the same ... both sides (shi'ites and sunnis) ... who were enemies and fought for centuries. Why do you think that is? :shock:


Quote
You got it upside down. The problem with the people in the world who call themselves 'muslims' are that they take thier definitions from an extra-quranic text. They may be 'muslim' in the sight of bukhari, but in the sight of Allah, not necessarily. They are trying to return to an imagined utopia when in fact the book is speaking to them here and now.


This is completely untrue. While I disagree with most Muslims on most subjects, I still recognize they are Muslims. A Muslim is one who submits to God and no one else. This means there is no physical idol in their presence... and they believe in God alone as the sustainer without partners. That definition is from the Qur'an, and it is the same in the Hadiths and their crappy mullahs. I have never met a Muslim who advocates we should worship anyone beside God.

Anything after that is just a bunch of details... which I don't really care about... since God assures me that God forgives anything but idolworship.

Quote
I don't believe maa malakat ayman are slaves. I believe they are ppl who are righteously under one's dominion or house. These people can have non-love based relationship with that person.


:roll: Check 24:32 where the word "`abd" or slave is used ... Sometimes I think God mentions certain words that are offensive... just to make sure some folks don't come around making trouble lol.

Ok, so when you say they are not slaves, do you think God says we can have sex with people under our house? Who, like guests? :shock: Sometimes, we are told we cannot be naked in front of anyone except our mates and those whose our right hand posses (see 23:5-6, for example.) The words "who guard their private parts" -- i.e, who do not have sex :-P


Quote
One heart, yes. For HIM not for anyone else (33/5).



No clue what you are trying to say. Say more, please. Who, "HIM"?





Peace, Aaron,

When Angels are quoted, it is usually one speaking for them. Not all speaking at the same time ;-) Also, many times, the "We" refers to the Angel(s) and God... who as far as the Human is conerned, are working together :-D


And Moses just met one Angel :) But at the end, the Angel speaks in the plural, see 18:80 "... and we feared... " Of course, it is not that God fears... but just another way to relate to the weak Human. And of course in 18:79, the Angel takes responsible... and in 18:81, Angel gives credit to God ... "and your LORD desired... "
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: Someone on September 23, 2003, 07:37:54 PM
Salam all,

Even if I have some difficulties to understand the issue discussed in this topic, I think this 2 verses can make it plain.

 ?And those females who commit lewdness together from among your women, then bring four witnesses over them from amongst you; if they bear witness, then you shall restrict them in the homes until death takes them, or God makes for them a way out. And those males who commit it together from amongst you, then you shall annoy them. If they repent and amend, then leave them alone. God is Redeemer, Merciful.? (4:15-16)

Thanks shane (I saw this verses in one of his posts) :wink:

Al hamdou lillah rabbi el3alamine.
[/b]
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 23, 2003, 07:52:04 PM
Wasalam, Someone,

The verses say.. "those who appraoch adultery among your women"(15) and "those who approach it among YOU(plural)("16)  :-P


Afdhere
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: Someone on September 24, 2003, 07:11:01 AM
Salam afdhere,

it's plural when talking about women, but it talks about 2 persons for men.
Read the arabic verse to see the difference. And it's not talking about adultery...
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 24, 2003, 08:54:50 AM
Wasalam, Someone,

Oh LORD :roll: Both verses talk to the Muslim community in general! It neither talks to women or men. Both of the verses speak in the masculine... because most of the time, in the Qur'an, God speaks to Muslims in the muscline sense.... NOT that he is talking to "men."

And since 4:15 stars with the muscline, it speaks muscline throughout the portion.

And, Someone, Fahishah is this sense IS adultery.

BUT.... let me humor you. What do you think is fahishah in 4:15-16... and what is the punishment thereof? Surely, you don't think God says we should leave lesbians in the houses until death comes to them. And what is the punishment for the males... since it just says "punish" them.

So since you believe 4:16 just speaks to men only, what do you do with lesbians concerning 24:2.... or do you think the Qur'an contradicts itself? :shock:
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: mquran on September 24, 2003, 03:04:06 PM
Salaam Afdhere,


Quote
Oh, brother. OK, so in your opinion, an old guy who can't get aroused (but still gets sexually stimulated inside) is exempt here? I bet you think her father and all of these other men lack sexuality for her, physically, too, right, although they are capable physically... as is the case with the unbelievers or the sick ones amongst the believers? :roll:


Sexually stimulated inside ? How does one do this ?


Quote
It has nothing to do with physical. It has to do with psychological. A gay man cannot -- psycologically -- be roused by a woman. So, no matter how much her physical body shows... it means nothing to him, though he is very much capable physically (as the case with some gay Muslims who get married to women, for reasons other than love or sexuality.)


Are eunuchs necessarily gays ? If not, then wouldnt they be included as well ?


Quote
ALSO... the verse talks about "THEIR ATTENDANTS .... AMONGST THE MALES"(wa al tabi`iina ... min al- rijjaliThe Hadith, and other historical records, whether "limitting" or not, show who these attendants were.


Im afraid I dont have the arabic original of that hadith but it never says there that the effeminate male was an attendant. 'tabiin' is simply a follower, not necessarily an 'attendant'.



Quote
Oh Lord... :roll: Are we talking about the Book of anybody else or the one sent to Muhammad? When I refer to Books sent to other people, I use their life stories (Hadith/Sunna or whatever they call themI'm only for the Hadith of Muhammad when discussing the Qur'an or the Book sent to Muhammad. If you see me referring to his Hadith when I'm talking about the life of Moses, or Jesus, you can tell me :))



The book sent to Muhammad mentions Muhammad by name only 4 times. Most of it is devoted to talking about Musa, Ibrahim, Nuh and Isaa. So by ur logic, u need to be a great bible scholar.


Quote
Well I don't look at the text as 'dead' ... but there are some of it that should just stay in the 7th century. I personally don't understand the need for camels today :-P but people all over the place... cling to such old things :)
On a more serious note, if your understanding of certain aspects in the Qur'an changes, it has to do with your own pre-disposed BS from cultures, etc ... not the true understanding of the Qur'an. And another thing your views may change is like I was saying before, if certain terms are not translated correctly (which people don't most of the time,) it can be a difference of day and night :(


No doubt it's to do with my predisposed BS. However, what inspired me to that knowledge was Allah himself. Allah's changing of the ayat in my life brought illumination to the ayat in the Book.


Quote


Have you ever studied the history of why Hadith was put in paper? By the way, for the generations living during Bukhari's time, certain names might be "different" to them but not the Hadiths. People grew up with these oral traditions... and somebody just decided to put them in paper... because it was becoming evident that people were just starting to see them as "family tales" even though it was oral history that transcended families.

The same is true for all histories in most of the world. A really good example is the Jewish Historian, Josephus, who put down all the oral history fo the Jewish people... during his lifetime.

And even my own people -- who did not write until the 1970s -- have been ever since recording our own history in paper.

By the way, most of the Hadiths are the same ... both sides (shi'ites and sunnis) ... who were enemies and fought for centuries. Why do you think that is? :shock:


Look, when it comes to your oral history etc, who can say anything against that. But Im talking about GOD'S BOOK here, Afdhere.

Do you know why there's a difference between fatawa of different jurisprudence schools ? Because certain hadith didn't reach them on time. Is this how God treats the thing which explains his revelations ? Come on, man.


Quote
This is completely untrue. While I disagree with most Muslims on most subjects, I still recognize they are Muslims. A Muslim is one who submits to God and no one else. This means there is no physical idol in their presence... and they believe in God alone as the sustainer without partners. That definition is from the Qur'an, and it is the same in the Hadiths and their crappy mullahs. I have never met a Muslim who advocates we should worship anyone beside God.

Anything after that is just a bunch of details... which I don't really care about... since God assures me that God forgives anything but idolworship.



So in the 'muslim world' there's no idolworship ? The only one in the quraan who said to be 'wa maa kaana min al-mushrikeen' is Ibrahim. He fulfilled God's kalimaah and became imam to mankind. THe 'muslim world' have imams of rituals. Not the same thing, Im afraid.

My assertion : the 'muslim world' has as much , if not more , shirik as a place on earth.



Quote
:roll: Check 24:32 where the word "`abd" or slave is used ... Sometimes I think God mentions certain words that are offensive... just to make sure some folks don't come around making trouble lol.

Ok, so when you say they are not slaves, do you think God says we can have sex with people under our house? Who, like guests? :shock: Sometimes, we are told we cannot be naked in front of anyone except our mates and those whose our right hand posses (see 23:5-6, for example.) The words "who guard their private parts" -- i.e, who do not have sex :-P


'house' here doesnt mean a roof and four walls. It could mean a lady who offers herself to you in marriage and live under your dominion.

sorry if there's an inadequacies in my replies.

thanks and salaam.
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 24, 2003, 04:37:38 PM
Wasalam, Mquran,

Quote
Sexually stimulated inside ? How does one do this ?


You are aroused just the same... except you can it is not happening outside. Why things like Viagra... then come into play ;-)


Quote
Are eunuchs necessarily gays ? If not, then wouldnt they be included as well ?


As Jesus puts it in the Gospel, there are born Eunuchs, Eunuchs who chose to be such and forced ones.

And while Eunuch is physically limited, he is not limited psychologically. So a straight Eunuch (ones forced... for whatever reasons) certainly does NOT include those mentioned in 24:31

In certain countries -- like India -- gay men choose to become and/or pretend to be Eunuchs because they are more accepted (I guess the straight men are not afraid of them no more lol.)


Quote
Im afraid I dont have the arabic original of that hadith but it never says there that the effeminate male was an attendant. 'tabiin' is simply a follower, not necessarily an 'attendant'.


It is hard to explain things to people like you... because you split hairs to find doubts :-P

In Arabic, when God says "tabi`iin" -- the ARABS of that time, as well as those who are living today... Understand it. Actually, tabi'iin doesn't mean follower but "FOLLOWS AROUND" ...

As for the Hadith, the woman is uncovered in the house with the dude, the Prophet and her brother. And he was talking to her brother. :roll:

BY the way, the Hadith -- like many -- has variations... and one that Aishah narrates says "A man used to enter upon us... " (i.e, he didn't have to knock... )

Quote
The book sent to Muhammad mentions Muhammad by name only 4 times. Most of it is devoted to talking about Musa, Ibrahim, Nuh and Isaa. So by ur logic, u need to be a great bible scholar.


No, actually, most of the stories are told to Muhammad -- to strengthen his belief. It has nothing to do with us. And many times, the ones that concern us... really deal with allegories.

That said, every time I refer to something that predates Muhammad, I try to find the source in that genre.

For example, I study the Bible and Jewish History every sunday :-) And, of course, it is not so I can become Jewish or Christian.


Quote
No doubt it's to do with my predisposed BS. However, what inspired me to that knowledge was Allah himself. Allah's changing of the ayat in my life brought illumination to the ayat in the Book.


Yes, God guides people in their own heart. The Human being, however, has a responsibility to find their own sources... that is why their eyes, ears and heart will be questioned (17:36)

Quote
Look, when it comes to your oral history etc, who can say anything against that. But Im talking about GOD'S BOOK here, Afdhere. Do you know why there's a difference between fatawa of different jurisprudence schools ? Because certain hadith didn't reach them on time. Is this how God treats the thing which explains his revelations ? Come on, man.


Oh, LORD :roll: Are we talking about the Qur'an or just Islamic History since the Qur'an? The Qur'an is the Qur'an everywhere in the Muslim world, with very little varience...

And, no, Fatwas of different jurisprudence schools are so because they disagree on the interpretation. Homosexuality is a good example. Certain schools treat it as Zina... and the non-married Homosexuals don't get stoned.... while others treat it specail and whether muhasan(married) or not, you get stoned to death. That has nothing to do with anything else.


Quote
So in the 'muslim world' there's no idolworship ? The only one in the quraan who said to be 'wa maa kaana min al-mushrikeen' is Ibrahim. He fulfilled God's kalimaah and became imam to mankind. THe 'muslim world' have imams of rituals. Not the same thing, Im afraid. My assertion : the 'muslim world' has as much , if not more , shirik as a place on earth.


Look, I do not read people's hearts. All I know is there aren't many Muslims in the Muslim world who have physical idols. And I'm not going to assert anything beyond that. My job is to get along with folks... and not accuse them of anything unforgivable as that...


Quote
'house' here doesnt mean a roof and four walls. It could mean a lady who offers herself to you in marriage and live under your dominion.


It says to "confine" them in the houses :-P But I bet that is not what it means hehe....




your brother,
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: mquran on September 25, 2003, 10:24:33 PM
Salaamun alaikum Afdhere,

Quote
It is hard to explain things to people like you... because you split hairs to find doubts  
In Arabic, when God says "tabi`iin" -- the ARABS of that time, as well as those who are living today... Understand it. Actually, tabi'iin doesn't mean follower but "FOLLOWS AROUND" ...
As for the Hadith, the woman is uncovered in the house with the dude, the Prophet and her brother. And he was talking to her brother.  
BY the way, the Hadith -- like many -- has variations... and one that Aishah narrates says "A man used to enter upon us... " (i.e, he didn't have to knock... )


Split hairs? Look, people split more hairs when they go prospecting for a house or car to buy! This is my eternal fate here, so if I split hairs , I think I'm justified. I don't want to end up with Shafiee or Bukhari on J-day.

So this hadith has many variations? And you're comfortable accepting something which your compilers cannot even agree what actually happened ?


Quote
No, actually, most of the stories are told to Muhammad -- to strengthen his belief. It has nothing to do with us. And many times, the ones that concern us... really deal with allegories.
That said, every time I refer to something that predates Muhammad, I try to find the source in that genre.
For example, I study the Bible and Jewish History every sunday  And, of course, it is not so I can become Jewish or Christian.


So the stories in the Quran HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH US ? Wow, amazing. I find it funny that you liberalise yourself in order to reconcile your homosexuality with Islam yet your liberalisation stops dead when it comes to reading the Quran for itself.

12/111 says that in thier story-relationships are archetypes FOR ULIL ALBAAB. You mean to tell me there are no ulil albaab now ? The last ulil albaab was Muhammad ?


Quote
Oh, LORD  Are we talking about the Qur'an or just Islamic History since the Qur'an? The Qur'an is the Qur'an everywhere in the Muslim world, with very little varience...


Anyone can write a book and call it 'the quran' thus creating a variance. Az-zikr, the one in eminence, rememberance will always be the ones coming from the mother of cities.

Quote
And, no, Fatwas of different jurisprudence schools are so because they disagree on the interpretation. Homosexuality is a good example. Certain schools treat it as Zina... and the non-married Homosexuals don't get stoned.... while others treat it specail and whether muhasan(married) or not, you get stoned to death. That has nothing to do with anything else.


Interpretation ? Go ask a Hambali scholar about his view of qiyaas and ijmaa ? He will tell you that's bid'aa because Hambalites don't believe in this. The very SOURCES of sharia are in dispute by these 4 schools.


Quote
Look, I do not read people's hearts. All I know is there aren't many Muslims in the Muslim world who have physical idols. And I'm not going to assert anything beyond that. My job is to get along with folks... and not accuse them of anything unforgivable as that...


There's a big difference between being alladhina-yashraku/those who have shirik and 'al-mushirikeen/those ppl whose shiriks have led them to create mischief on the earth'. The latter people are mentioned in sura 9.

Everyone has a measure of shirik in them unless they become like Ibrahim who was in submission fully to Allah alone. He became imam to mankind and his order was an establishing point for mankind and a place of safety. (2/124-125)

'muslims' today are nowhere near this. Physical idols or lack thereof mean nothing if the idol is a piece of art. It's the 12 non-physical idols we need to worry about.

peace





[/quote]
Title: Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
Post by: afdhere on September 26, 2003, 07:23:22 AM
Wasalam, Mquran,


Quote
Split hairs? Look, people split more hairs when they go prospecting for a house or car to buy! This is my eternal fate here, so if I split hairs , I think I'm justified. I don't want to end up with Shafiee or Bukhari on J-day.


You should be so lucky as to end up with folks like Bukhari. Regradless of how their work is turned into, they were Muslims who did the best they could. They didn't split hairs... and try to see in the stars stuff that are not ... nor have they blamed the people of the past -- whom they never met -- for the beliefs/actions of those who are living the present ;-)

Your job as a human is ONE thing: worship God and no one else. If you have that correctly -- which pretty much most Muslims, Jews, Christians, Baha'is, etc do -- then forget the rest ... and be a good person; i.e, don't go around hurting people with your thoughts, words or actions.


Quote
So this hadith has many variations? And you're comfortable accepting something which your compilers cannot even agree what actually happened ?



:roll: No, silly, Ayesha -- who was another wife -- had a different experience. But, anyways, the Hadith is not like the Qur'an; they are stories that are to inspire, not "guide." So, at the end of the day, as long as they are not advocating against God, nobody cares :-P


Quote
So the stories in the Quran HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH US ? Wow, amazing. I find it funny that you liberalise yourself in order to reconcile your homosexuality with Islam yet your liberalisation stops dead when it comes to reading the Quran for itself. 12/111 says that in thier story-relationships are archetypes FOR ULIL ALBAAB. You mean to tell me there are no ulil albaab now ? The last ulil albaab was Muhammad ?



:roll: Did I say all stories or most stories? And you misunderstood... I was talking about half-mentioned stories... not a-z stories like Joseph's :-P Each story has its own allegory. Some -- like Joseph's -- just say; God never fail anyone. Pretty simple, I would say.

By the way, Mquran, I never had to reconcile my "homosexuality" -- my sexuality has always been fitrah... as my skin color or nationality or gender has been... it is just that some folks have always had problems with ALL of those identities. And I've never been one to let others define me.


Quote
Anyone can write a book and call it 'the quran' thus creating a variance. Az-zikr, the one in eminence, rememberance will always be the ones coming from the mother of cities.


ROFL :lol: Well they all came Arabia, where the dude it was sent to has lived. And some varient Qur'ans came from Mecca itself :-P


Quote
Interpretation ? Go ask a Hambali scholar about his view of qiyaas and ijmaa ? He will tell you that's bid'aa because Hambalites don't believe in this. The very SOURCES of sharia are in dispute by these 4 schools.


Yes, but that is why it is just sharia -- man made laws, more or less. You misunderstand, regardless of how disputed they may seem -- they all agree they are equal :-D

By the way, we are only talking about Sunni Schools -- you should get into Shi'ite schools. LOL :)


Quote
There's a big difference between being alladhina-yashraku/those who have shirik and 'al-mushirikeen/those ppl whose shiriks have led them to create mischief on the earth'. The latter people are mentioned in sura 9.  Everyone has a measure of shirik in them unless they become like Ibrahim who was in submission fully to Allah alone. He became imam to mankind and his order was an establishing point for mankind and a place of safety. (2/124-125)  'muslims' today are nowhere near this. Physical idols or lack thereof mean nothing if the idol is a piece of art. It's the 12 non-physical idols we need to worry about.



:roll: Shirk is shirk. Regardless of what the masses say, there is no "smaller" shirk. Hence, those who "have" shirk (what the?) ... are simply mushrikiin.

Ok, I have a question -- why are all "free minded" folk obsessed with Abraham? Abraham is not any more "imam" than Adam, Noah or the FAMILY of Amram (3:33) ... all of these people were "chosen"

AGAIN, you are judging people's hearts... which you have no business judging. Your job is -- do you see any physical idols? If not, then zip it :) Let God be the Judge since he is Ahsan el Hakamiin (Best of Judges.)




your brother,

Afdhere