Homosexuality


Homosexuality thread in QRAC

Advertisements

Ahwaa.org : Wrong name !


We had a new guy post a link to a Muslim LGBT group today on Quranology Discussions. The name of the group is ‘ahwaa’ (lusts). Way to go trying to dispel the myth that alternative lifestyles are about sex 😛

Homosexuality and the people of Lut


Just a few hours ago, I got to taste a certain flavor of Quranists who are acting like extreme sectarians, and I’m going to spit it out!

There were discussions about homosexuality all afternoon. Each discussion would get 400 comments or more of basically two sides – one side opposing homosexuality and accusing those who support it of twisting God’s words, and another side trying to send people the message that homosexuality is normal and Quranically allowed (or simply not prohibited).

I’d perhaps fail to make an objective statement regarding what was actually a fight, but allow me to represent my views without getting a notification every two seconds telling me I’m disgusting.

IF YOU CONTRIBUTED TO THAT DISCUSSION, PLEASE SKIP TO POINT 3 THEN COME BACK FOR 1 AND 2.

  1. There is not one verse directly saying homosexuality is forbidden.It’s important for me to find such a verse. Allah forbids fahisha. But what is fahisha? Who decided to categories it under love (of all kinds)? Considering that homosexuality is in fact harmless, it would be hard to count it along with setting up partners beside God  (which to me is to kill in the name of God or similar ACTS), killing children, the murder of oneself (whether in suicide or “emotional” ways I won’t want to discuss now) and the murder of others. All these qualities were mentioned along with fahisha in 6:151. In 2:169, fahisha was linked to using God for one’s own agenda by saying things one is not sure of.It’s interesting to know that fahisha was put under heterosexual sex in 12:24 where Imra’atul Azeez was trying to get Yusuf into having sex with her. I do not actually believe that, but I’m working on different grounds (familiar with the majority of quranists) to proof a point.In 16:90, fahisha is mentioned along with transgression.The real transgression is to claim homosexuality is forbidden, and by that emotionally blackmailing homosexuals – if worse, even preventing them from doing what makes them happy in the name of God.According to lexicons, fahisha (FA, HA, SH)  means “something ugly”. I have not yet read every verse in context to approve that, but let me add that homophobia is taught. It’s not natural. What is natural is to accept all people as they are and love them equally despite their beliefs. Why are some people homophobic? They find their society, fathers, ancestors, culture and surrounding people highly against homosexuality after putting words in God’s mouth! So, can this “ugliness” be relative? See no. 3 on fahisha committed by Lut’s people.
  2. Homosexuality is normal.Sadly, all those who were against homosexuality on that discussion thought it’s abnormal although proven by science. Even zoology records observations of animals committing acts of homo/bisexuality. Yes, the same animals that act by “fitra/natural instinct”. I wont bother redirect people to research or links. They can do that themselves. The Quran’s teachings are not against human nature. The Quran does not even prohibit nudity. Yes, it tells us to guard “private parts”, but this guarding always varies within whatever society you live in – what is private in rather reserved areas is completely acceptable in other areas. I even find it critical to further look into the issues of guarding “private parts” (as the translators call them).Take sayida Maryam for example. In 21:91, Maryam and her “ibn” become a sign to the Worlds. Does it not astonish you how there are two different words for “son” in the Quran (being ibn and walad)? Does it not astonish you that IBN (son) is from the same root as BNI (build)? It’s also strange that this ib came out after blowing “ruh” into her farj.
  3. Al Fahisha in Lut’s story.Lut’s story was discussed in several chapters. The one I picked was chapter 29, detailing the very beginning of Lut’s quest. Lut believed ‘to’ Ibrahim after Ibrahim showed him logic (29:25).Lut’s people (Kingdoms of Sodom and Gomorrah) were not homosexuals (only). I added the “only” in respect to all opinions. Lut’s verse-line goes as follows –2:26– Lut believes in Ibrahim’s philosophy and decides to begin a hijra/exodus to God.2:28– Lut adopts Ibrahim’s way by going to his people to openly appose their beliefs. Notice the word Qawm (meaning both men and women!).2:28 – Here Lut begins the criticism. His people did something that I believe no one did better (not earlier). Notice the use of the word “ta’tuna”. It’s from the same root as 553 other occurrences in the Quran (ATY). This is specially used with Zakaat, which is to “come” or “bring” (instead of the commonly believed “give”). The same word was also used with magic (21:3). Can you have sex with magic? It’s used in 12:60 to mean “fetch” or “bring” Yusuf’s brother, instead of “rape him for me”, if we’re going to be swinging that way! It’s also used in 4:127 with what is commonly believed to be about wives/women. It doesn’t mean sex there either!

    2:29 – Here is the list of what Lut’s people did.

    ONE: They “come to” RIJAL (not men) as people “come to” magic in 21:3. This means they used rijal for something exclusively. This is not normal, as society is composed of both rijal and nisa’. They were creating a social imbalance that was harming al nisa’.

    TWO: Qat’ as-sabeel. Al Insan already knows what Al Sabeel is (76:3). Also notice how in 76:3, it’s AS-SABEEL, not simply sabeel. I have several theories regarding this word – one would be that it’s concerned about virtues (right vs. wrong). In 42:42, al sabeel is ALA (imposed on) people who do wrong. Then, 59:7 links sabeel to economy. Ibn-asabeel to me means those who have adopted the philosophy of asabeel. Reading on, 43:37 would approve this connection with economy (considering the verses previous to it). Another theory is that As-Sabeel is a cause of Huda or righteous logic (27:24). The wording is very essential, and so we have to pay attention to “qat'”. Usually, the kuffar would be trying to guide people away from As-Sabeel (assad ‘an asabel/adhaluna ‘an asabeel). Instead, Lut’s people want to “cut/disconnect” it altogether!

    THREE: They did the “ityan” in their “munkar” nadi/club. “Nadi” cannot be far from “nida'”, found in several verses where God would be calling unto someone (20:11), a Prophet would be calling to his people (79:16) or to God (11:45), or people were engaging in actual discussions or arguments (68:21). As we all know, Al Munkar is mentioned next to fahisha in many occasions. What is the difference? I still have no clear theory on this. ):

    Of course, his qawm did not approve to what he said. They even dared him of brining [i’tina] God’s punishment to them (being so assured of their position).

    You should also know that if he was speaking to all of his qawm [including WOMEN], then how could he mention ityan al rijal [having sexual relationships with men] when the crowd could have included women as well? That would be a clear contradiction, unless of course, rijal does not mean men.

    2:30 – shows they were mufsideen. They were actually contributing in something destructive and harmful – something we cannot find within homosexuality. He prayed for nasr/victory over them.

I will not discuss the rest of the verse since the words used within them [bushra, nawja, ghabra etc].

Finally, I need to say that perhaps I can’t interpret Quran very well at this moment (especially that a month earlier, the value I held for Arabic grammar was lost  and it became vital to rebuild “Quranic” grammar now), but I know how to be ethical. I know that preventing people from happiness is barbaric. It’s a ridiculous act bred by ignorance and unexplained hatred.

It’s so sad to see Quranists incapable of further escaping the social programming. They have already taken a huge step by abandoning hadith but forgot to abandon culture-based prejudices, such as hating homosexuals… or worse, hating metalheads. I recall earlier how a fellow Quranist told me he couldn’t believe a Muslim would listen to satanic music (Heavy metal being satanic! What crap of an accusation is that?) that is ungodly and encourages “evil”, and how holding up the devil horns is also satanic (although the very notion of the devil having horns is so silly that Satan himself would disapprove it, especially when we have never even see him!).

Point is, many people hate homosexuality because they claim God hates it although the fail to present an actual reason for God hating the people HE created.

Homosexuality is beautiful. (Yes, you can remove me off your filthy facebook! Never wanted to be there anyway!)

Playing on Words or Playing with Superficiality?


The ‘Gay Wars’ continue with those who say that homosexuality is wrong. One such guy quoted 7/81 for me and said, this is as clear as day:

Verily, with lust you approach men instead of women: nay, but you are people given to excesses!”

The person in question accused me of ‘playing with words’ when I said ‘min dooni an-nisaa’ means ‘instead of women’ (since he thinks nisa is women) so God allows bisexuality. The fact is, all translations agree with this.

Is it playing with words or is in fact reading carefully? Min dooni was a phrase chosen by God, not me. If God wanted to say lusting after men is bad (if shahwat is lust that is), then why even mention nisaa?

We need to carry out deep analyses of these verses. Everything is not as it seems.