Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot

[zenje]

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!)

"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:

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

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

[TheNabi]

Peace Aaron  

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?'

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.

well, isn't that what we are questioning?

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

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:

[zenje]

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!  

[afdhere]

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.

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

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.

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...

[shamsul-arefin]

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

[John_From_Ohio]

Peace,

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.

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

[afdhere]

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.

[mquran]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

[AaRoN]

peace

joe:

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?

[afdhere]

Wasalam, Mquran,

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

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.

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

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

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:

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.

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

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... "