How can I stand up to the LGBT? (need advice)

[Borntowitnesstruth]

14 hours ago, kadhim said:

This is not a great argument. No one among the people understood that there were people who didn’t like the opposite. They didn’t have a word for hetero because no one knew anything else existed. Are you asking me why God didn’t use a word that didn’t exist? 

Wow, are you saying that Allah (عزّ وجلّ) did not know that such a thing which you call feeling exists while Allah (عزّ وجلّ) has introduced many new beliefs which Arabs didn't know such as Qayamat or judgement day. Your such reason is invalid. Allah (عزّ وجلّ) know everything but sin which you are defending is abominable in His sight that's why it has no place in Islam rather it is sin which is to be eradicated.

15 hours ago, kadhim said:

The generally unstated understanding of the early generations was that everyone was attracted to the opposite, so same sex was a weird thing people just chose.

I might flip this and ask why are you going against the received consensus understanding of the early generations to apply the texts to people they had no conception of? This is qiyas akhi. 

Firstly, it was a known sin in the past there are books filled with Ahadith and narrations mentioning that such sin was practiced by some but the only difference is that there were less people in the past advocating such a sin while in present there are more who advocate such a sin under the pretext of feeling. Shaitan has a feeling toward sin too, he cannot be defended for his wrong choices such a feeling is a curse for humanity. 

As for qayas, you would have been right about it, if there would have been a verse in the Quran issuing separate injunctions for hetero and homo because Allah (عزّ وجلّ) knows differences among people that's why he addresses man and woman separately for their rights but since there is no mention of such a difference, it is just a made up thing by you which is called a fabrication in Quran which is forbidden in Islam. So, my brother this is not my qayas it's your biddah.

[علوي]

7 hours ago, khizarr said:

What's wrong is that I already replied to you on the previous page, the page where you referenced a majhool and mistranslated hadith and then said "my bad" when I called you out for it. Remember that beauty? You clearly do not have a background in hadith or Arabic, but that's okay, because the more towering issue here is that you do not have the capacity to understand the realities of human society either. And the even more larger issue is that you're essentially arguing to slam dunk on the other side, while I've just calmly dribbled some alternative readings and ideas in front of you - something that you seem to have no tolerance for. And if someone takes the high road and chooses not to reply to you anymore, then it becomes an ego win for you. Good for you, man, you can take the medal, I've dealt with enough fundamentalists my whole life - it didn't hurt me to reply to one more.

The fact that you copy and pasted a hadith without even knowing what the word "mukhannathun" means is hilarious, yet quite upsetting in light of the hatred and oppression that exists; and I do apologize in advance if I offend you, but it just follows that if you mistranslate ahadith so drastically wrong, your readings of the Qur'an are not going to be worth their weight in gold either. Still, you mentioned some verses, so I'd advise you to go ahead and read what @kadhimhas to say, since my opinions are pretty much synchronized with his on this topic. Interestingly, none of you have really brought a strong case against him. Anyways, take it or leave it as you wish. In any case, this is my last reply to you on this post.
 

Good evening.

Again dodging replying to the words of the Quran. Absolutely ridiculous. 

And by the way, like I've been saying this whole time, if you have one hadeeth (saheeh, daeef, majhool, whatever) to back up your point, for the actual love of God, bring it on. But you don't, because you're wrong. 

Look, if you're gonna take your opinion on LGBTQIABCDEFG+++++++++++++ as literal gospel, go ahead. But don't come back and claim that Islam agrees with you. Go make your own religion or something. 

And I repeat: I'm still waiting on the hadeeth. It can be daeef alaa mashhoor for God's sake, just give me one. 

[Cool]

9 hours ago, kadhim said:

It’s actually interesting that you quote this. Ironically, if I’m not mistaken, gay and lesbian Muslim activists actually invoke precisely this verse in support of allowing gay relationships/marriages in Islam. Azwaajan simply means spouses/companions, and is not gender specific. Moreover, the verse underlines that God desires for everyone to have a spouse to enjoy companionship and the tranquility, love, and mercy that comes with it. 

So if Azwajan is giving someone impression of same sex marriage then  here is another Azwajan:

وَالَّذِينَ يُتَوَفَّوْنَ مِنكُمْ وَيَذَرُونَ أَزْوَاجًا يَتَرَبَّصْنَ بِأَنفُسِهِنَّ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ وَعَشْرًا فَإِذَا بَلَغْنَ أَجَلَهُنَّ فَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِيمَا فَعَلْنَ فِي أَنفُسِهِنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَاللّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرٌ

2:234 ) And (as for) those of you who die and leave wives behind, they should keep themselves in waiting for four months and ten days; then when they have fully attained their term, there is no blame on you for what they do for themselves in a lawful manner; and Allah is aware of what you do.

And here is another Azwajan:

وَالَّذِينَ يُتَوَفَّوْنَ مِنْكُمْ وَيَذَرُونَ أَزْوَاجًا وَصِيَّةً لِأَزْوَاجِهِمْ مَتَاعًا إِلَى الْحَوْلِ غَيْرَ إِخْرَاجٍ ۚ فَإِنْ خَرَجْنَ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي مَا فَعَلْنَ فِي أَنْفُسِهِنَّ مِنْ مَعْرُوفٍ ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ 
2:240)  And those of you who die and leave wives behind, (make) a bequest in favor of their wives of maintenance for a year without turning (them) out, then if they themselves go away, there is no blame on you for what they do of lawful deeds by themselves, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Interestingly all the pronouns and verbs used in both the  verses for Azwajan are feminine pronouns & verbs.

Its not the end, here is another verse & the word here is  Azwajokum:

وَلَكُمْ نِصْفُ مَا تَرَكَ أَزْوَاجُكُمْ إِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُنَّ وَلَدٌ ۚ فَإِنْ كَانَ لَهُنَّ وَلَدٌ فَلَكُمُ الرُّبُعُ مِمَّا تَرَكْنَ ۚ مِنْ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِينَ بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ ۚ وَلَهُنَّ الرُّبُعُ مِمَّا تَرَكْتُمْ إِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَكُمْ وَلَدٌ ۚ فَإِنْ كَانَ لَكُمْ وَلَدٌ فَلَهُنَّ الثُّمُنُ مِمَّا تَرَكْتُمْ ۚ مِنْ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ تُوصُونَ بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ ۗ وَإِنْ كَانَ رَجُلٌ يُورَثُ كَلَالَةً أَوِ امْرَأَةٌ وَلَهُ أَخٌ أَوْ أُخْتٌ فَلِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا السُّدُسُ ۚ فَإِنْ كَانُوا أَكْثَرَ مِنْ ذَٰلِكَ فَهُمْ شُرَكَاءُ فِي الثُّلُثِ ۚ مِنْ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصَىٰ بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ غَيْرَ مُضَارٍّ ۚ وَصِيَّةً مِنَ اللَّهِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَلِيمٌ
4:12)  And you shall have half of what your wives leave if they have no child, but if they have a child, then you shall have a fourth of what they leave after (payment of) any bequest they may have bequeathed or a debt; and they shall have the fourth of what you leave if you have no child, but if you have a child then they shall have the eighth of what you leave after (payment of) a bequest you may have bequeathed or a debt; and if a man or a woman leaves property to be inherited by neither parents nor offspring, and he (or she) has a brother or a sister, then each of them two shall have the sixth, but if they are more than that, they shall be sharers in the third after (payment of) any bequest that may have been bequeathed or a debt that does not harm (others); this is an ordinance from Allah: and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing.

Again, male-female relationship and explanation of inheritance shares. Do you think God forgot to mention inheritance for gays & lesbians? Come on!!

Now here is "Zowj":

وَإِنْ أَرَدْتُمُ اسْتِبْدَالَ زَوْجٍ مَكَانَ زَوْجٍ وَآتَيْتُمْ إِحْدَاهُنَّ قِنْطَارًا فَلَا تَأْخُذُوا مِنْهُ شَيْئًا ۚ أَتَأْخُذُونَهُ بُهْتَانًا وَإِثْمًا مُبِينًا

4:20) And if you wish to have (one) wife in place of another and you have given one of them a heap of gold, then take not from it anything; would you take it by slandering (her) and (doing her) manifest wrong?

Again look at pronouns & verbs, all pointing towards male-female relation.

Now come to the احكام of divorce:

وَإِذَا طَلَّقْتُمُ النَّسَاء فَبَلَغْنَ أَجَلَهُنَّ فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ سَرِّحُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ
2:231) And when you divorce women and they reach their prescribed time, then either retain them in good fellowship or set them free with liberality,

So divorce is only for husband wife relationship . There is no divorce  rules set for gay or lesbian couples , no waiting period , no rules regulations whatsoever lol.

Now come to Nikah:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا نَكَحْتُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ ثُمَّ طَلَّقْتُمُوهُنَّ مِن قَبْلِ أَن تَمَسُّوهُنَّ فَمَا لَكُمْ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ عِدَّةٍ تَعْتَدُّونَهَا فَمَتِّعُوهُنَّ وَسَرِّحُوهُنَّ سَرَاحًا جَمِيلًا

33:49 ) O you who believe! when you marry the believing women, then divorce them before you touch them, you have in their case no term which you should reckon; so make some provision for them and send them forth a goodly sending forth.

Please find for me any phrase  commanding the believer men like  اذا نكحتم المومنين , you may take your time and search the whole quran.

Or you can also try to find  for me a phrase commanding the believer men like اذا طلقتم الرجال

Hope you will do the hard work lol.

[kadhim]

8 hours ago, Cool said:

have already pointed out how a verse can be misinterpreted for drawing the meaning which suits to deviant purposes.

But this is Quran, here is what it says clearly when mentioning the الزوجين:

فَجَعَلَ مِنْهُ الزَّوْجَيْنِ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنْثَىٰ 

75:39)

While the word "zowj" has variety of meanings but throughout the Quran you will not find a single verse which mentions "zowj" as wife, to be understood as الذكر (male+male couple). Examples:

قُلْنَا يَا آدَمُ اسْكُنْ أَنْتَ وَزَوْجُكَ الْجَنَّةَ

2:35

هُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَكُمْ مِنْ نَفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ وَجَعَلَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا لِيَسْكُنَ إِلَيْهَا

7:189

And I can quote hundreds of verses too. Lastly, there is a Chapter Talaq in Quran. Which sets the rules of separation between couples. Then there is a concept of dowry, then the commands to not go to your wives during menstruation, then the laws of رضاعة are there too. All of these concepts came under the subject "zowj" (spouse). Had

Alright. I’m going to limit responses today both in number and length. I spent way way too much time on here yesterday. I also want to wrap my involvement in this thread for a bit since I think I’ve got what I want in terms of testing arguments and capturing responses.  

The problem for you is, is all sort of apples and oranges unfortunately. 30:21 is a statement of general principle about the beauty and importance of loving, stable relationships. And this passage, everything is very gender neutral. You can’t really respond to that point directly in terms of that verse alone, because it’s true. The most general, overarching statement on the importance of love and companionship expresses loving relationships as something important that God wants for everyone without any mentioned exceptions. 

All this other business you’re bringing up is legal business. We already know the Quran only talks about male-female relationships, as the type of relationship relevant to the vast majority of the readers and the one having added importance as the one producing children and where the next generation is raised up. You’re just putting forward the same thing of “it doesn’t talk about same sex so it’s not valid” in a slightly different form. It’s not a good argument. 

Second, it’s specifics rather than general, and the specifics don’t override the general principle.

8 hours ago, Cool said:

Had there been 0.000001% chance of any homosexuality, God would have not ignored it. We will find a clear command setting the rights of gay or lesbian couple. 

This claim came up before. It’s not a well reasoned claim. Quran is a moderate sized book made of a length to be readily memorizable. It doesn’t try to talk about all details; it is selective. 
Claims like this would take away God’s sovereignty to decide what He wants to talk to us about and what He wants to leave to us to discover and figure out how to handle ourselves. 

[kadhim]

3 hours ago, Cool said:

So if Azwajan is giving someone impression of same sex marriage then  here is another Azwajan:

وَالَّذِينَ يُتَوَفَّوْنَ مِنكُمْ وَيَذَرُونَ أَزْوَاجًا يَتَرَبَّصْنَ بِأَنفُسِهِنَّ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ وَعَشْرًا فَإِذَا بَلَغْنَ أَجَلَهُنَّ فَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِيمَا فَعَلْنَ فِي أَنفُسِهِنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَاللّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرٌ

2:234 ) And (as for) those of you who die and leave wives behind, they should keep themselves in waiting for four months and ten days; then when they have fully attained their term, there is no blame on you for what they do for themselves in a lawful manner; and Allah is aware of what you do.

And here is another Azwajan:

وَالَّذِينَ يُتَوَفَّوْنَ مِنْكُمْ وَيَذَرُونَ أَزْوَاجًا وَصِيَّةً لِأَزْوَاجِهِمْ مَتَاعًا إِلَى الْحَوْلِ غَيْرَ إِخْرَاجٍ ۚ فَإِنْ خَرَجْنَ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي مَا فَعَلْنَ فِي أَنْفُسِهِنَّ مِنْ مَعْرُوفٍ ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ 
2:240)  And those of you who die and leave wives behind, (make) a bequest in favor of their wives of maintenance for a year without turning (them) out, then if they themselves go away, there is no blame on you for what they do of lawful deeds by themselves, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Interestingly all the pronouns and verbs used in both the  verses for Azwajan are feminine pronouns & verbs.

Its not the end, here is another verse & the word here is  Azwajokum:

وَلَكُمْ نِصْفُ مَا تَرَكَ أَزْوَاجُكُمْ إِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُنَّ وَلَدٌ ۚ فَإِنْ كَانَ لَهُنَّ وَلَدٌ فَلَكُمُ الرُّبُعُ مِمَّا تَرَكْنَ ۚ مِنْ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِينَ بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ ۚ وَلَهُنَّ الرُّبُعُ مِمَّا تَرَكْتُمْ إِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَكُمْ وَلَدٌ ۚ فَإِنْ كَانَ لَكُمْ وَلَدٌ فَلَهُنَّ الثُّمُنُ مِمَّا تَرَكْتُمْ ۚ مِنْ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ تُوصُونَ بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ ۗ وَإِنْ كَانَ رَجُلٌ يُورَثُ كَلَالَةً أَوِ امْرَأَةٌ وَلَهُ أَخٌ أَوْ أُخْتٌ فَلِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا السُّدُسُ ۚ فَإِنْ كَانُوا أَكْثَرَ مِنْ ذَٰلِكَ فَهُمْ شُرَكَاءُ فِي الثُّلُثِ ۚ مِنْ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصَىٰ بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ غَيْرَ مُضَارٍّ ۚ وَصِيَّةً مِنَ اللَّهِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَلِيمٌ
4:12)  And you shall have half of what your wives leave if they have no child, but if they have a child, then you shall have a fourth of what they leave after (payment of) any bequest they may have bequeathed or a debt; and they shall have the fourth of what you leave if you have no child, but if you have a child then they shall have the eighth of what you leave after (payment of) a bequest you may have bequeathed or a debt; and if a man or a woman leaves property to be inherited by neither parents nor offspring, and he (or she) has a brother or a sister, then each of them two shall have the sixth, but if they are more than that, they shall be sharers in the third after (payment of) any bequest that may have been bequeathed or a debt that does not harm (others); this is an ordinance from Allah: and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing.

Again, male-female relationship and explanation of inheritance shares. Do you think God forgot to mention inheritance for gays & lesbians? Come on!!

Now here is "Zowj":

وَإِنْ أَرَدْتُمُ اسْتِبْدَالَ زَوْجٍ مَكَانَ زَوْجٍ وَآتَيْتُمْ إِحْدَاهُنَّ قِنْطَارًا فَلَا تَأْخُذُوا مِنْهُ شَيْئًا ۚ أَتَأْخُذُونَهُ بُهْتَانًا وَإِثْمًا مُبِينًا

4:20) And if you wish to have (one) wife in place of another and you have given one of them a heap of gold, then take not from it anything; would you take it by slandering (her) and (doing her) manifest wrong?

Again look at pronouns & verbs, all pointing towards male-female relation.

Now come to the احكام of divorce:

وَإِذَا طَلَّقْتُمُ النَّسَاء فَبَلَغْنَ أَجَلَهُنَّ فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ سَرِّحُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ
2:231) And when you divorce women and they reach their prescribed time, then either retain them in good fellowship or set them free with liberality,

So divorce is only for husband wife relationship . There is no divorce  rules set for gay or lesbian couples , no waiting period , no rules regulations whatsoever lol.

Now come to Nikah:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا نَكَحْتُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ ثُمَّ طَلَّقْتُمُوهُنَّ مِن قَبْلِ أَن تَمَسُّوهُنَّ فَمَا لَكُمْ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ عِدَّةٍ تَعْتَدُّونَهَا فَمَتِّعُوهُنَّ وَسَرِّحُوهُنَّ سَرَاحًا جَمِيلًا

33:49 ) O you who believe! when you marry the believing women, then divorce them before you touch them, you have in their case no term which you should reckon; so make some provision for them and send them forth a goodly sending forth.

Please find for me any phrase  commanding the believer men like  اذا نكحتم المومنين , you may take your time and search the whole quran.

Or you can also try to find  for me a phrase commanding the believer men like اذا طلقتم الرجال

Hope you will do the hard work lol.

Are you posting basically exactly the same argument again just with different words? So I just finished replying to this argument, such as it is.
 

[kadhim]

5 hours ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

Wow, are you saying that Allah (عزّ وجلّ) did not know that such a thing which you call feeling exists while Allah (عزّ وجلّ) has introduced many new beliefs which Arabs didn't know such as Qayamat or judgement day. Your such reason is invalid. Allah (عزّ وجلّ) know everything but sin which you are defending is abominable in His sight that's why it has no place in Islam rather it is sin which is to be eradicated.

Wow. Are you denying God the sovereignty to choose not to talk about something and leave it for us to figure out? 
 

6 hours ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

Firstly, it was a known sin in the past there are books filled with Ahadith and narrations mentioning that such sin was practiced by some but the only difference is that there were less people in the past advocating such a sin while in present there are more who advocate such a sin under the pretext of feeling. Shaitan has a feeling toward sin too, he cannot be defended for his wrong choices such a feeling is a curse for humanity. 

You’re mushing together two different things here: same-sex sex acts, and gay/lesbian as an exclusive internal orientation. People knew about the first. They didn’t know about the second. 

[Cool]

1 hour ago, kadhim said:

You’re just putting forward the same thing of “it doesn’t talk about same sex so it’s not valid” in a slightly different form. It’s not a good argument. 

Please rest assured, this is what Quran says about itself:

وَكُلَّ شَيْءٍ فَصَّلْنَاهُ تَفْصِيلاً

17:12

وَكُلَّ شَيْءٍ أَحْصَيْنَاهُ كِتَابًا

78:29 

Having presented these verses, I think it is also not a good argument to say that Quran has not discussed something, specifically that which belongs to human society & its development. 

Neither it is a good argument to say that Quran is in support of that which it call as "fahishaat". 

Nothing is being neglected by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

1 hour ago, kadhim said:

30:21 is a statement of general principle about the beauty and importance of loving, stable relationships.

Actually the three important points mentioned in this verse:

1. لتسكنوا اليها

2. جعل بينهم مودة

3. و رحمة

Each of this point can only be understood once you have a deeper knowledge of these terms. 

For instance, it is said about "Mawaddat" that it is:

والمودة هي الحب الظاهر أثره في مقام العمل.

Each of the above 3 has its deeper connections with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) as all of them سكينة، مودة و رحمة are of abstract natures and since Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has promised rewards for every good deed. The homosexuality, on the other hand, is more focused on material aspect & solely reflecting the "hawa e nafs".

I think I am naturally inclined towards same sex therefore there has to be some space for my inclinations in the religion, is what I view as "hawa e nafs". 

We have clear commands with us. The ahadith of Aimma e Tahireen عليهم السلام are there too. Why is there a need to make own desires & inclinations as اله? I mean how can one even make "his" inclination over and above what Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has provided for him & commanded him to do?

 

[kadhim]

1 hour ago, Cool said:

Please rest assured, this is what Quran says about itself:

وَكُلَّ شَيْءٍ فَصَّلْنَاهُ تَفْصِيلاً

17:12

وَكُلَّ شَيْءٍ أَحْصَيْنَاهُ كِتَابًا

78:29 

Having presented these verses, I think it is also not a good argument to say that Quran has not discussed something, specifically that which belongs to human society & its development. 

Neither it is a good argument to say that Quran is in support of that which it call as "fahishaat". 

Nothing is being neglected by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

Absolutely one reads any of this in the literal way you are way you are trying to read it. The Quran objectively does not actually talk about literally everything. Do I have to explain this further? This is not a serious thought, and I’m not going to entertain it further. 

1 hour ago, Cool said:

Actually the three important points mentioned in this verse:

1. لتسكنوا اليها

2. جعل بينهم مودة

3. و رحمة

Each of this point can only be understood once you have a deeper knowledge of these terms. 

For instance, it is said about "Mawaddat" that it is:

والمودة هي الحب الظاهر أثره في مقام العمل.

Each of the above 3 has its deeper connections with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) as all of them سكينة، مودة و رحمة are of abstract natures and since Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has promised rewards for every good deed. The homosexuality, on the other hand, is more focused on material aspect & solely reflecting the "hawa e nafs".

I think the fact that you have to stoop to the lie that gay and lesbian relationships are not capable of rising above the physical says all that needs be said about the quality of thought you’re bringing to the table on this subject. What a sad and petty display. 

Edited September 4, 2022 by kadhim

[Borntowitnesstruth]

1 hour ago, kadhim said:

Wow. Are you denying God the sovereignty to choose not to talk about something and leave it for us to figure out? 

Are you joking about God bro that he left out this matter for you to decide while there are verses in Quran forbidding it. I think you have lost everything about Islam.

 

1 hour ago, kadhim said:

You’re mushing together two different things here: same-sex sex acts, and gay/lesbian as an exclusive internal orientation. People knew about the first. They didn’t know about the second. 

Well, if there would have been such thing, Islam would have spoken about it but unfortunately same sex acts and gay/lesbian aren't two different things. These are hetero people who are beseiged by emotional blackmail that made them into homo by sick minds who shouldn't be allowed to do this. So don't preach things which Quran and Islam opposes.

[Cool]

45 minutes ago, kadhim said:

This is not a serious thought, and I’m not going to entertain it further. 

I was talking specifically about matters specific to the building of healthy human society. And Quran did mention homosexuality (sodomy) as fahishatan, munkar. What else you are looking for? 

Trying desperately to somehow make a space by raising poor arguments and by stating that there is an exception for some percentage. Is that not a lie you are giving to God Almighty? 

51 minutes ago, kadhim said:

you have to stoop to the lie that gay and lesbian relationships are not capable of rising above the physical

Set aside the physical or spiritual realms, many people just lose their humanity by involving in fahishaat & munkar:

وَلَقَدْ ذَرَأْنَا لِجَهَنَّمَ كَثِيرًا مِّنَ الْجِنِّ وَالإِنسِ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ لاَّ يَفْقَهُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ أَعْيُنٌ لاَّ يُبْصِرُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ آذَانٌ لاَّ يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَا أُوْلَـئِكَ كَالأَنْعَامِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ أُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْغَافِلُونَ

7:179

I think we have discussed enough, your are free to chose a way out for yourself. I am out of this now.

On a side note, I enjoyed discussions with you.

Wassalam!!

[علوي]

Let me ask again. To those who have the audacity to think that Islam is not against homosexuality.

Give me one hadeeth that backs up your claims. Just one. It can be daeef, majhool, I don't care. 

I beg you, bring some sort of daleel/hujjah that isn't from your own imaginations.

(Specifically @khizarr and @kadhim)

Why is the burden of proof on us, who think that Islam prohibits homosexuality? The burden of proof is on you, who want to change what the Quran, the Ahlulbayt, and our scholars have been saying for 1400 years. 

So I'm going to say it again: bring me one hadeeth that backs up your claims.

[Ibn Tayyar]

15 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

There is a difference between calling for the acceptance of practicing homosexuals in society (which I - and every Muslim - should disagree with) and claiming that neither the Holy Qur'an nor the Religion itself condemns homosexual acts. 

Till this day there are many Muslims that advocate for secularism and allowing for the "freedom" of drinking, fornication, haram gender mixing gatherings etc... while they themselves believe such things are haram.

But that is different from those who would come and argue that these things shouldn't just be allowed, but that they are in fact halal. In the eyes of the fuqaha, one who believes liwat (sodomy) is halal - while actually knowing the Verses and hadiths that speak of it - has in fact left the religion entirely. 

For me, it is obvious that to try and paint a picture of sodomy not being the main condemned act of the numerous Verses that have been quoted on this thread requires a strange amount of tap-dancing, re-interpretations, incorrect use of Arabic conjunctions that no Arab in the 7th Century - or quite frankly beyond that - would have understood it otherwise.

For example, the first claim is that Lut (عليه السلام) was supposedly comparing a worse sin (rape of a man) to a (bad sin). This claim here is that Lut (عليه السلام) was attempting to emphasise how bad their sin was, which is why he "compared" male and female rape. 

My response to this claim is that it does not make sense linguistically to consider this claim sound, since it would not make sense to call someone a fasiq for choosing to commit one fisq over another. One is called a fasiq because they preferred fisq (haram/trangression) over halal, not because they chose a worse sin over a bad sin.

Like I said, change the "sins" in question here and apply it to other sins.

This is the Verse:

Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people. [7:81]

Imagine I said the following to an alcoholic group of people:

Indeed, you drink alcohol instead of eating pig. Rather, you are a trangressing people.

What kind of daw'ah is this? And why would I call them fasiqs for drinking when they would be fasiqs for preferring alcohol over eating pig? They would be fasiqs even if they ate pig instead of drinking! Both actions are fisq, it wouldn't matter which is worse.

The only way to soundly interpret this Verse, is the way Muslims have interpreted it since the beginning, which is Lut (عليه السلام) was comparing fisq to halal, and raping women is not halal.

The second claim is that the Holy Qur'an has told us of their "rape method" in the following Verse:

Indeed, you approach men and obstruct the road and commit in your meetings [every] evil." And the answer of his people was not but that they said, "Bring us the punishment of Allāh, if you should be of the truthful.

The activist attempt is to try and change "and" into "then", and the way they do this is by claiming that there are other Verses in the Qur'an where و has been used to imply tarteeb (sequence). 

The response to this claim is that we can only understand و to mean "then" if there is a contextual basis (siyaaq) for that to be the case, otherwise it would be usually translated to "and". The activist response here is to say, well, the context is in the Verse, Lut (عليه السلام) is clearly describing the steps of how they commit rape against travelling men.

But the problem with this claim is that the Verse would actually be claiming that the "rape" comes first, and then they cut the travellers off" and then they display their sins in their gatherings. How is that to be believed? Wouldn't "rape" be the final step of this so-called "sequence"? How do they rape before they cut the travellers off or display their sins in their gatherings?

One response would be to try and claim that "tatoona" here means approach the men, or go to the men, but not rape, as this would happen "later". But this is quite frankly, laughable, as it is clear as daylight that "tatoona" means sexual approachment, this is how it was understood in the other Verses with the exact same context. I believe even most activists would consider this claim to be the weakest.

Another claim is that "al-dhikraan min al-alameen", used in 26:165.

Sayed Al-Tabataba'i has mentioned 3 potential tafsirs for this Verse:

1) That they physically approach the men of mankind, or of the nations (in a general sense). In other words, commit sodomy with mankind instead of women.

2) That they are the ones from among alameen (nations) who were known for sodomy, as opposed to the other nations.

3) Another tafseer is that: from among all nations (al-alameen), you chose and preferred the males? 

The activist attempt is to try and say that "al-alameen" here means travellers or foreigners or guests, as it was perhaps used as such in 15:70, but the problem with this interpretation would mean that Lut (عليه السلام) is basically saying they only commit intercourse with (or rape, as they believe) foreigners, but the other Verses which we mentioned before prove their preference for men over women is general, and that preference (or rape, as they say) is what is condemned.

All 3 of those tafaseer make more sense than this tafsir - they also answer the question of why did Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) "supposedly" add words for "no reason".

Finally I would also like to make this point, it is strange to me that people who would otherwise believe in hadiths (they are not Qur'anists) reject and accept based on what they deem fit, despite the fact that the from among the hadiths which condemn homosexual behaviour, not many of them are just authentic, these hadiths are mutawatir. They are a books worth. Make of that how you wish.

Brother @kadhim al-salamu alaykum

I would like to know your response to the points above, so that we may learn from eachother insha Allah and attain the truth we both seek.

Thank you for the fruitful discussion.

[kadhim]

10 hours ago, Cool said:

I was talking specifically about matters specific to the building of healthy human society.

Alright. Let’s paraphrase this a bit and say

“The Quran gave the people it came to all the information and/or inspiration it needed to found a healthy civilization.”

I can get behind that idea. 

(Technically speaking, hadith-oriented traditionalists don’t seem to exactly believe this in practice; beyond using the hadith to elaborate or specify things already mentioned in the Quran, the hadith also introduce practical laws not even alluded to within the Quran. The Quran for example condemns apostasy but never mentions it as something with a worldly punishment. The hadith introduce the idea of such a punishment. Come to think of it, the Quran never mentions same sex as a worldly punishable affair either. It does for zina but not that. )

But in general, I can get behind that conception of the Quran containing all (the essential) things needed to found a civilization. 

But seeing that we have already established that “all things” does not literally mean “all things,” but just the essential, it’s pretty easy to see how details about some 1-2% minority might not make the cut as essential. 

10 hours ago, Cool said:

Trying desperately to somehow make a space by raising poor arguments and by stating that there is an exception for some percentage. Is that not a lie you are giving to God Almighty? 

Let me summarize from my perspective to give a sense of my view of who exactly is giving the lie to God almighty.

- There is no evidence of people in the classical period having any awareness that there were people without heterosexual attraction.

- All the evidence indicates that people in the classical period understood same-sex sexual activity as something “straight people” chose to do whether as some sort of personal debauchery or as some alternative of necessity when the opposite sex was not available. 

- There are relatively clear signs in the Quran account of Lot’s people that the people doing these acts were people with heterosexual attraction. The texts talk about these men having wives. And the traditional account’s understanding that Lot offered his daughters in marriage presumes that the men liked women. 

- There are relatively clear signs from the hadith that the imams understood same-sex sexual activity as something done by people with heterosexual attraction. The punishments for same-sex sexual activity are explicitly determined with the person’s heterosexual marital status as a major criteria. Same sex activity is punished almost identically to zina. The hadith related to same sex sex activity explicitly make the comparison to the rules for zina. Giving the impression it was viewed as a just a special form of zina regulated along with zina as part of regulating heterosexual desire. The only difference in punishments compared to zina, namely that the passive individual is always punished maximally, can be explained simply along these lines. Either the passive individual is punished more on average because he is seen as straying the most from his heterosexual fitrah. And/or the extra punishment is to equalize the disincentive gap on the passive side with comparison to zina in that a man does not have the risk of pregnancy to discourage him and thus needs extra discouragement. 

- As well, probably the clearest hadith we have from the imams about the reason for regulating same-sex sex activity (the hadith I referenced above from Uyun Akhbar ar-Ridha) says that the reason relates to men’s natural inclination to women and that men with men and women with women can break the generation. Again, this seems to presume that we are talking about people with heterosexual desire. 

Taken together, we have substantial evidence from the texts and from what we know of people’s understanding that texts and rules about same-sex sexual activity centered around regulating heterosexual desire, promoting marriage over extra-marital sex alternatives by discouraging and disincentivizing the alternatives. 

So when people today want to apply these texts toward gay and lesbian people, they are applying them to people the early community would never have imagined as a target for the laws, because they had no idea that such people existed. And moreover, it is applying rules to people with no connection to the phenomenon clearly underlying the intention behind these rules, namely heterosexual desire. 

Traditionalists need to provide justification for this leap of analogy, this innovation. 

Moreover, applying the texts this way to gay and lesbian people leaves them with no options for love and companionship, despite the fact that clear texts like 30:21 say that God creates spouses for all people so that they can experience tranquility, love, and mercy thereby.

This is in contrast to the principle that Islam provides reasonable solutions to all people and the principle that God does not burden a soul more than it can bear.

To tie back to my exchange with Eddie Mecca, if gay and lesbian people are, as he puts it, born that way, or, as I put it, they are that way from whatever combination of factors before they are aware of it through no choice of their own and this is irreversible, then this is a newly understood phenomenon that changes the calculus and requires that we grapple with this and find a way for them. 

Anyone who fails to acknowledge this or denies such is ignoring evident reality, and giving the lie to the one who creates reality and helps us understand it, God. 
 

10 hours ago, Cool said:

your are free to chose a way out for yourself

I’m not sure what that’s supposed to mean, but Ok. 

[kadhim]

4 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

Brother @kadhim al-salamu alaykum

I would like to know your response to the points above, so that we may learn from eachother insha Allah and attain the truth we both seek.

Thank you for the fruitful discussion.

Was.

I’m not sure what you’re looking for here.

I already gave my perspective about all of these points and have nothing further to add. A friendly reminder that all of these are in relation to one particular alternate hypothesis for the story of Lot, namely that it was all about rape.

I gave a defense of that reading in response to the claim that it is just an unimaginable, ridiculous reading that can’t be taken seriously. I patiently interpreted all the relevant verses in that light. I even pointed out some places where it offers explanation of points where the traditional reading has nothing to say, and where you yourself could find nothing to say. 

And at the same time, I was more than clear that it is not even my preferred reading. So that’s about as much as I have to say about something that isn’t even my view on the issue.

Good day.

Edited September 5, 2022 by kadhim

[kadhim]

6 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

Let me ask again. To those who have the audacity to think that Islam is not against homosexuality.

Give me one hadeeth that backs up your claims. Just one. It can be daeef, majhool, I don't care. 

I’ve been over this already, but just a reminder. 

The texts I would present are basically all the same ones you would present.

I just interpret them differently than you do. You are free to disagree with the interpretation, but it’s clearly dishonest to suggest I haven’t referenced any Quran or hadith in my discussions here. 

6 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

Why is the burden of proof on us, who think that Islam prohibits homosexuality?

Because you put forward claims that undermine God’s justice and mercy, you apply unreasonable demands and hardship on people with no clear rationalization as to what benefit, you apply precedents from Quran and hadith to a population the people who received those texts would never have conceived of as the target of the texts because they didn’t even know these people existed. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

1 hour ago, kadhim said:

- There are relatively clear signs from the hadith that the imams understood same-sex sexual activity as something done by people with heterosexual attraction.

Salam this is ust repeating Ghulat & Quranists by comparing apples with oranges because punishment of drinking wine & Zina which similarity in punishment doesn't mean that these are same sins which number of lashing is different also ways of proving of these sins are different which Zina has differnt aspects which punishment of each type of Zina is different from each other so therefore nobody can judge a sin based on it's punishment .

According to historical record  only false prophets after demise of prophet Muhmmad (pbu) so then later Gulat especially  Nusayriyya have legalized same sex marriage which according to them Quran has been altered then so then nulified by them as self appointed prophets  through their new laws .

Fornication or Zinā

Quote

Punishment

In jurisprudential texts, three punishments are mentioned for fornication, each of which is for one or some of its types: lashes, death and stoning.

• Lashes: the punishment of the fornicator, man or woman who is adult, free and non-muhsan (conjugal sex is not available for them), is 100 lashes. This ruling is mentioned in Qur'an 24:2. According to this verse, a group of believers should be present upon administering the punishment.

• Death: the punishment of fornication with mahram ones (close blood-related kin such as one's mother, sister and daughter), fornication by force (rape), fornication of a non-Muslim man with a Muslim woman and several times of committing fornication after being lashed is death.

• Being stoned: the punishment for adultery is to be stoned. Fornication of a free married man or woman with another adult and sane one is called muhsina fornication (adultery). A person who is sentenced to be stoned should perform ghusl. The punishment of a fornicator who is a free married old man or woman is 100 lashes and then being stoned.

Fornication committed in holy places such as mosques, shrines of religious leaders and in the month of Ramadan, will have intensified punishment and in addition to the prescribed punishment, it is also subject to discretionary punishment by the judge. The rule about fornication of a man with a dead woman is the same. The Islamic punishment of fornication is reflected in the penalty law of Islamic countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

 

1 hour ago, kadhim said:

Come to think of it, the Quran never mentions same sex as a worldly punishable affair either. It does for zina but not that. )

But in general, I can get behind that conception of the Quran containing all (the essential) things needed to found a civilization. 

this is punishment of same sex between men according to Quran 

 Should two among you commit it, chastise them both; but if they repent and reform, let them alone. Indeed Allah is all-clement, all-merciful. (16)

Quote

 وَاللَّذَانِ يَأْتِيَانِهَا مِنكُمْ فَآذُوهُمَا ۖ فَإِن تَابَا وَأَصْلَحَا فَأَعْرِضُوا عَنْهُمَا ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ تَوَّابًا رَّحِيمًا ‎﴿١٦﴾‏

punishment of same sex for women according to Quran 

Should any of your women commit an indecent act, produce against them four witnesses from yourselves, and if they testify, detain them in [their] houses until death finishes them, or Allah decrees a course for them. (15) 

Quote

وَاللَّاتِي يَأْتِينَ الْفَاحِشَةَ مِن نِّسَائِكُمْ فَاسْتَشْهِدُوا عَلَيْهِنَّ أَرْبَعَةً مِّنكُمْ ۖ فَإِن شَهِدُوا فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ فِي الْبُيُوتِ حَتَّىٰ يَتَوَفَّاهُنَّ الْمَوْتُ أَوْ يَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيلًا ‎﴿١٥﴾

https://tanzil.net/#4:15

 

Quote

(Some believe: the mentioned verse is about Sodomy, and based on this possibility, the verdict of murder has been abrogated to chastise for  the perpetrator .) [10]
 

 

Quote

3- The fall of the Hadd from the perpetrator
[edit]

The Hadd will be removed from the one who commits the sin, if he repents and corrects himself.

 

 

Quote

3.1 - The condition of the validity of repentance

The end of the verse refers to the issue of repentance and forgiveness of such sinners, and says: If they truly repent and correct themselves and make amends for the past, then do not punish them, because Allah is repentant and merciful. .
In fact, this order has opened the way of return for such wrongdoers, who in case of repentance and reform, the Islamic society will accept them with open arms and they will not be a rejected element of the society.
But of course (as stated in jurisprudential books) repentance is correct if it is done before the crime is proven in the Islamic court, and the witnesses are presented, and the verdict is issued by the Islamic court. 
This ruling is also used that people who have repented for past sins should never be reprimanded, where the sentence of punishment and Shariah limit is lifted by repentance. In the first way, people should turn a blind eye to their past, as well as those who have this limit. It applies to them, and after that they repent, they must have been subject to the forgiveness of Muslims.[12]

 

 

4- The condition of the punishment of Sodomy
[edit]

The punishment of Lawat is conditional on doing it voluntarily.

https://fa.wikifeqh.ir/حکم_لواط_(قرآن)

 

Quote

وقد عزي إلى أبي مسلم المفسر أن الآية الأولى لبيان حكم السحق بين النساء ، والآية الثانية تبين حكم اللواط بين الرجال ، والآيتان غير منسوختين.

وفساده ظاهر : أما في الآية الأولى فلما ذكرناه في الكلام على قوله : ( وَاللَّاتِي يَأْتِينَ الْفاحِشَةَ مِنْ نِسائِكُمْ ) ، وأما في الآية الثانية فلما ثبت في السنة من أن الحد في اللواط القتل ، وقد صح عن النبي صلى‌الله‌عليه‌وآله أنه قال : من عمل منكم عمل قوم لوط فاقتلوا الفاعل والمفعول ، وهذا إما حكم ابتدائي غير منسوخ ، وإما حكم ناسخ لحكم الآية ، وعلى أي حال يبطل قوله.

 

It has been attributed to Abi Muslim, the interpreter, that the first verse explains the ruling on crushing between women, and the second verse shows the ruling on sodomy between men, and the two verses are not abrogated.

And its corruption is apparent: As for in the first verse, when we mentioned it in the speech on his saying: (And those who commit indecency from among your women), and as for the second verse, when it is proven in the Sunnah that the hadd punishment for sodomy is murder, and it was authenticated on the authority of the Prophet, may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon him and his family, that he said: “Whoever among you does an act is an act of peopel of  Lot, kill the subject and the object, and this is either a preliminary ruling that has not been abrogated, but a ruling that abolishes the ruling of the verse, and in any case it invalidates is his statement. [repentance]

http://lib.eshia.ir/12016/4/235/تبين

 

1 hour ago, kadhim said:

The hadith related to same sex sex activity explicitly make the comparison to the rules for zina. Giving the impression it was viewed as a just a special form of zina regulated along with zina as part of regulating heterosexual desire.

Ghulat

Muhammad b. Nusayr al-Numayri who claimed prophethood was the head of the Numayriyya or Nusayriyya sect. It is said that he believed in reincarnation and lordship of Imam al-Hadi (a). He believed in the marriage with mahrams as justifiable, and also same-sex marriage of men. He claimed as being sent by Imam al-Hadi (a) as a prophet. Muhammad b. Musa b. al-Hasan b. Furat supported him. Followers of Muhammad b. Nusayr that were called Nusayriyya were among the most famous Ghali (exaggerating) sects who had some branches.[48]

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Imam_Ali_b._Muhammad_al-Hadi_(a)

Quote

C) Muhammad b. Nusayr

A third rival to Abu Ja’far for the office of the sifara was Muhammad b. Nusayr, who was not an ordinary Imamite, but belonged to the extremists, (al-Ghulat)

 

Quote

But the occultation of the Twelfth Imam enabled the Ghulat to extend their role as agents or Gates (Abwab) at the expense of the Saf’ir, since the Saf’ir could not refute their claim by declaring publicly that he was the true Imam's Saf’ir, a declaration which might put his life and the Imam's life in danger. For this reason, when al‑‘Askari died, Muhammad b. Musa al‑Shari’i claimed ‑ as has been noted ‑ that he was the Gate (Bab) of the Imam.

According to al‑Tusi, after the death of al-Shari’i, Muhammad b. Nusayr al‑Numayri aspired to the office of the Saf’ir26.

This shows that both men may have been representatives of a single trend. According to Al-Kashshi, Ibn Nusayr had already claimed that he was the Bab of the tenth Imam27. Al‑Tusi's account suggests that he had abandoned this claim during the lifetime of the eleventh Imam, al‑‘Askari. It seems that only after the death of the first Saf’ir did he dispute the legality of Abu Ja’far as the Saf’ir and claim that he was the Bab of the Twelfth Imam.

 

Therefore Abu Ja’far cursed and excommunciated him. Having been excommunicated, Ibn Nusayr tried to make Abu Ja’far change his mind, but he did not even receive him, so the Imamites excluded him from their community28.

https://www.al-islam.org/occultation-twelfth-imam-historical-background-jassim-m-hussain/underground-activities-second-safir

 

 

[Cool]

2 hours ago, kadhim said:

There is no evidence of people in the classical period having any awareness that there were people without heterosexual attraction.

I think you need to gather more information on this. Have you heard of term المخنث ? 

The link I shared earlier has discussed this subjected and have cited few ahadith from Sunni sources:

https://www.mpvusa.org/sexual-diversity

And we too have some ahadith in our books about this topic. 

2 hours ago, kadhim said:

it’s pretty easy to see how details about some 1-2% minority might not make the cut as essential. 

Brother,there is no such thing as 1-2% minority. Those who say they have no attraction in opposite sex but have attraction in same sex are liars. Its like saying of a north pole of magnet that I have no attraction in south pole, I am attracted towards north pole. And we know that only opposite poles attract each other. 

Consider a male being sexually attracted towards a male, in what capacity the other male would serve his sexual satisfactions? In what capacity would he behave? At least one of them have to act as female which he is not.

This is such a disgusting sick mental state that nothing good can come out of any such relationship. Don't you just realize that?

[Ashvazdanghe]

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

Same sex activity is punished almost identically to zina. The hadith related to same sex sex activity explicitly make the comparison to the rules for zina.

 

Punishment of Sodomy
The narrations of this chapter are divided into two categories:
A) Hadiths that consider the Hadd of Sodomy as the Haddt of zina. (for married men is stoning & for single men is lashing)

b) Hadiths that consider the Hadd of Sodomy to be different from the limit of zina. (killing by sword or dropping from moumtain by closed hands & fits or burning by fire) which these second narration have weak documentation likewise unreliabelity of due narrating from Waqifis & weak narrators or wrong understanding from text.

Quote

According to most of the jurists, these narrations are used that the governor and ruler of Sharia can change the punishment of stoning to killing with a sword and otherwise, like a gun, or easier methods such as killing with electric devices, if there is expediency. Especially in our time, it can be seen that the enemies of Islam are abusing killing by stoning and insulting Islam, even though they themselves have accepted the death penalty for some crimes.
There is a narration for the second and third punishment (throwing from the mountain with tied hands and feet and burning with fire).there is one narration .Of course, this narration also indicates that the first punishment is killing

http://ensani.ir/fa/article/93081/نکته-ای-در-مجازات-لواط

Quote

Adultery

Zinā al-Muḥṣan or al-Muḥṣana (Arabic:زنا المحصن او المحصنة) (adultery or extramarital sex) is a zina (out of wedlock sexual intercourse) done by a married man or woman. It is proved by four eyewitnesses or confession. In certain conditions the adulterer is punished by stoning.

• Being stoned: the punishment for adultery is to be stoned. Fornication of a free married man or woman with another adult and sane one is called muhsina fornication (adultery). A person who is sentenced to be stoned should perform ghusl. The punishment of a fornicator who is a free married old man or woman is 100 lashes and then being stoned.

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Adultery

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Fornication

 

[Borntowitnesstruth]

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

The hadith introduce the idea of such a punishment. Come to think of it, the Quran never mentions same sex as a worldly punishable affair either. It does for zina but not that. )

What do you think about what happened to people of Sodom. The punishment of their such sin was death and it was the same punishment which was given by Imam Ali (عليه السلام). You can't say that there is no mention for such a sin in Quran. 

[علوي]

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

it’s pretty easy to see how details about some 1-2% minority might not make the cut as essential.

And I'm assuming they didn't make the ahadeeth, either? Hmm... quite convenient, don't you think?

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

this seems to presume that we are talking about people with heterosexual desire. 

'Seems'?? What, Imam al-Reda (عليه السلام) couldn't be a bit clearer? Or are you interpreting his words to suit your opinion in the same way that you interpret the Quran to suit your opinion?

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

if gay and lesbian people are, as he puts it, born that way, or, as I put it, they are that way from whatever combination of factors before they are aware of it through no choice of their own and this is irreversible

Did you even read the article presented to you?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6

Quote

Nearly half a million genomes reveal five DNA markers associated with sexual behaviour — but none with the power to predict the sexuality of an individual.
...
The scientists found that genetics could explain 8–25% of the variation in sexual behaviour.

8-25% is what they are born with. The other 75-92% is from culture and environment. 

Yes, there are some genes which make one more likely to have homosexual tendencies, but the main reason is just from society. People are taught that homosexuality is okay. Not my words;

Quote

[U]p to 25% of sexual behaviour can be explained by genetics, with the rest influenced by environmental and cultural factors...

This is from scientists. 

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

I just interpret them differently than you do. You are free to disagree with the interpretation, but it’s clearly dishonest to suggest I haven’t referenced any Quran or hadith in my discussions here. 

Wait, wait, wait. Hang on. You think that Allah would be so unclear so as to allow for a misinterpretation of His words on such a large scale?

Okay, the Quran has clear and unclear verses.

But Ahlulbayt as well? They also didn't give us enough to deal with this issue? 

And by the way, the only reason you quoted any verse or hadeeth was to give it a twisted, biased, made-up meaning. Because if you quoted and read it how it was actually said, it would disprove your whole argument.

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

Because you put forward claims that undermine God’s justice and mercy

I believe I've already explained this, but I'll do it again. Here's an extract from my answer to a question on Quora about homosexuality in Islam:

Quote

First of all, just because these people have homosexual tendencies, doesn’t mean they are forced to perform certain acts.
...
Islam doesn’t say that having homosexual thoughts is prohibited. Rather, it says that performing homosexual acts is prohibited. For example, kissing the same gender out of lust, or going further and copulating with the same gender.

But just because some people are attracted to the same gender, doesn’t mean they are compelled to perform these acts. They can still restrain their desires, in the same way that people with anger management issues restrain their anger, or in the same way that pedophiles can restrain their desires.

If these people successfully restrain their desires, they will be given more of a reward than those who were not tested in the same way.

But if they fail the test - God is strict in punishment.

Furthermore, homosexuality being prohibited is further justified because of the harms that it causes, which [I've already mentioned].

 

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

you apply unreasonable demands and hardship on people with no clear rationalization as to what benefit

What benefit? It's the same benefit that us Shi'a get from suffering and being oppressed since the beginning of our existence: Heaven. Haven't you heard the Imam (عليه السلام) say, "Our followers are like gold, the more they suffer, the more they shine"?

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

you apply precedents from Quran and hadith to a population the people who received those texts would never have conceived of as the target of the texts because they didn’t even know these people existed. 

First of all, it's not me 'applying' these precedents, it's our thousands of scholars in Najaf and Qom who have extensively studied ahadeeth on this issue and made a decision. 

Secondly, even Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has said things in the Quran that no one knew in the 7th century, but we know now. Like about how the universe is expanding, how the human embryo looks like a leech, how every living thing was made from water, how mountains are like 'pegs' in the earth... You think the 7th century Arab would understand all this? Of course not. So this reasoning is not valid.

2 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Nusayriyya have legalized same sex marriage which according to them Quran has been altered then so then nulified by them as self appointed prophets  through their new laws .

The Alawites don't legalize same-sex marriage... at least not the ones that I know. I know some Alawites and none of them accept same-sex marriage as something that is permissible. 

2 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

He believed in the marriage with mahrams as justifiable, and also same-sex marriage of men.

I don't know about the opinion of Mohammad Ibn Nusayr himself, but the Nusayris (Alawites) of today most definitely do not accept homosexuality. Or at least the ones I know.

[Cool]

4 hours ago, Cool said:

This is such a disgusting sick mental state that nothing good can come out of any such relationship. Don't you just realize that?

Ok, this will be my last comment here on this thread. So I thought to make it a bit lengthy to cover the verses of Quran and few ahadith on the subject matter. 

What I said was that homosexuality is a disgusting sick mental state where a person start showing sexual interests in same sex. Prophet Lut (عليه السلام) said the same  in a different manner, when their people came to him demanding his guests, Lut (عليه السلام) said in the end of his dialogue:

أَلَيْسَ مِنْكُمْ رَجُلٌ رَشِيدٌ
(is there not among you one right-minded man?) 11:78

Lets see what Quran says about those who desire sexual interests in same sex:

وَجَاءَهُ قَوْمُهُ يُهْرَعُونَ إِلَيْهِ وَمِنْ قَبْلُ كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ السَّيِّئَاتِ ۚ قَالَ يَا قَوْمِ هَٰؤُلَاءِ بَنَاتِي هُنَّ أَطْهَرُ لَكُمْ ۖ فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَلَا تُخْزُونِ فِي ضَيْفِي ۖ أَلَيْسَ مِنْكُمْ رَجُلٌ رَشِيدٌ {78}

[11:78] And his people came to him, (as if) rushed on towards him, and already they did evil deeds. He said: O my people! these are my daughters-- they are purer for you, so guard against (the punishment of) Allah and do not disgrace me with regard to my guests; is there not among you one right-minded man?

قَالُوا لَقَدْ عَلِمْتَ مَا لَنَا فِي بَنَاتِكَ مِنْ حَقٍّ وَإِنَّكَ لَتَعْلَمُ مَا نُرِيدُ {79}

[11:79] They said: Certainly you know that we have no claim on your daughters, and most surely you know what we desire.

They were not able to hurt the guests of Lut (عليه السلام), who were basically angels. All they took with them from this world were their evil desires.

At another place, Prophet Lut a s said about his people:

لَعَمْرُكَ إِنَّهُمْ لَفِي سَكْرَتِهِمْ يَعْمَهُونَ {72}

[15:72] By your life! they were blindly wandering on in their intoxication.

The word "sakratehim" is also mentioning their abnormal mental health. 

I have also said that nothing good can come out of homosexual relationship. Now lets see how Quran has mentioned about the nature of their actions & their desires:

وَلُوطًا آتَيْنَاهُ حُكْمًا وَعِلْمًا وَنَجَّيْنَاهُ مِنَ الْقَرْيَةِ الَّتِي كَانَتْ تَعْمَلُ الْخَبَائِثَ ۗ إِنَّهُمْ كَانُوا قَوْمَ سَوْءٍ فَاسِقِينَ {74}

[21:74] And (as for) Lut, We gave him wisdom and knowledge, and We delivered him from the town which wrought abominations; surely they were an evil people, transgressors;

أَتَأْتُونَ الذُّكْرَانَ مِنَ الْعَالَمِينَ {165}

[26:165] What! do you come to the males from among the creatures

وَتَذَرُونَ مَا خَلَقَ لَكُمْ رَبُّكُمْ مِنْ أَزْوَاجِكُمْ ۚ بَلْ أَنْتُمْ قَوْمٌ عَادُونَ {166}

[26:166] And leave what your Lord has created for you of your wives (Azwajikum)? Nay, you are a people exceeding limits.

وَلُوطًا إِذْ قَالَ لِقَوْمِهِ أَتَأْتُونَ الْفَاحِشَةَ وَأَنْتُمْ تُبْصِرُونَ {54}

[Shakir 27:54] And (We sent) Lut, when he said to his people: What! do you commit indecency while you see?

أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ الرِّجَالَ شَهْوَةً مِنْ دُونِ النِّسَاءِ ۚ بَلْ أَنْتُمْ قَوْمٌ تَجْهَلُونَ {55}

[27:55] What! do you indeed approach men lustfully rather than women? Nay, you are a people who act ignorantly.

وَلُوطًا إِذْ قَالَ لِقَوْمِهِ إِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ الْفَاحِشَةَ مَا سَبَقَكُمْ بِهَا مِنْ أَحَدٍ مِنَ الْعَالَمِينَ {28}

[29:28] And (We sent) Lut when he said to his people: Most surely you are guilty of an indecency which none of the nations has ever done before you;

أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ الرِّجَالَ وَتَقْطَعُونَ السَّبِيلَ وَتَأْتُونَ فِي نَادِيكُمُ الْمُنْكَرَ ۖ فَمَا كَانَ جَوَابَ قَوْمِهِ إِلَّا أَنْ قَالُوا ائْتِنَا بِعَذَابِ اللَّهِ إِنْ كُنْتَ مِنَ الصَّادِقِينَ {29}

[29:29] What! do you come to the males and commit robbery on the highway, and you commit evil deeds in your assemblies? But nothing was the answer of his people except that they said: Bring on us Allah's punishment, if you are one of the truthful

I also said that the act of homosexuality is injustice according to Quran:

وَلَمَّا جَاءَتْ رُسُلُنَا إِبْرَاهِيمَ بِالْبُشْرَىٰ قَالُوا إِنَّا مُهْلِكُو أَهْلِ هَٰذِهِ الْقَرْيَةِ ۖ إِنَّ أَهْلَهَا كَانُوا ظَالِمِينَ {31}

[29:31] And when Our messengers came to Ibrahim with the good news, they said: Surely we are going to destroy the people of this town, for its people are unjust.

Hence according to the above verses of Quran, it is established that homosexual acts and even the desires are from among the "fahishaat" and are "munkar" as well. Those who desire such are termed in Quran as zalimeen, tajhaloon, A'adoon, fasiqeen etc. The act itself is showing the sick mental state of the ones who desire it or practice it.

It should be noted that the adultery is also from among the "fahishaat"

وَلاَ تَقْرَبُواْ الزِّنَى إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَسَاء سَبِيلاً

17:32 

Now coming to the ahadith we have, I am quoting some of them which covers the act of homosexuality as well as its desire. Following are the ahadith:

1. Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (‘a) has stated:

“Penetrating the anal opening is a greater sin than penetrating the vagina. Certainly Allah destroyed a complete Umma (Umma of Hazrat Lut (‘a) because they indulged in sodomy. Allah has not destroyed even one man for adultery”.

(al-Kafi.)

2. The Holy Prophet (S) says,

“A person who commits sodomy with a boy will acquire such a Janabat (impurity) that even all the water of this world cannot remove it. Allah will be wrathful at him and curse him. (That is He will take away His Mercy from him and will award Hell for him.) What a dreadful place it is! Then the Heavens shudder of it. And the person who allows another to mount him from behind to commit sodomy, then Allah puts him on the fringe of Hell (in extreme heat) and keeps him there till He completes the reckoning of all the people. Then He orders him to be put into Hell. One by one he is made to suffer all the punishments of Hell till he reaches the lowest stage. Then he never comes out from there.”

(Wasa’il ul-Shi’a.)

3. Amir ul-Mu’minin ‘Ali (‘a) has said:

“Sodomy is a Greater Sin and carries punishment when a man mounts upon another man but does not penetrate. If he penetrates, it is kufr”

(al-Kafi.)

4. Huzaifa ibn Mansur says:

“I enquired regarding sodomy which is a Greater Sin from Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (‘a)”. The Imam replied:

“To press the sexual organ between the thighs in an illegal way”

I asked, “Who is the person who commits sodomy”.

Imam (‘a) replied;

“One who has disbelieved in what Allah has revealed to his Messenger (the Holy Qur’an).”

(Wasa’il ul-Shi’a.)

5. Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (‘a) was queried by Abu Basir regarding the verse:

“So when our decree came to pass, we turned them upside down and rained down upon them stones, of what has been decreed, one after another.” (Surah Hud 11:82).

Imam (‘a) explained:

“There is no one who leaves this world while considering sodomy Halal, but that Allah hits him with one of the stones that had fallen on the people of Hazrat Lut (‘a).

(Tafsir al-Qummi.)

6. Imam ‘Ali al-Ridha’ (‘a) has said;

“Refrain from adultery and sodomy, and this sodomy is worse than adultery. These two sins are the causes of seventy two ills of this life and the Hereafter.”

(Fiqh al-Ridha)

7. It is also related from the Holy Prophet (S) that he said;

“Refrain from looking lustfully at the children of rich people and slaves, especially those who have yet no beard. Because the mischief that is possible by such glances is greater than mischief of glancing at young girls, who are in veil.”

(Wasa’il ul-Shi’a.)

8. Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (‘a) quotes the Holy Prophet (S) that he (S) said;

“If a person kisses a young man with passion, on the Day of the Judgement Allah shall tie a rein of fire on his mouth.”

(al-Kafi)

9. Imam al-Ridha’ (‘a) has remarked,

“When a person kisses a young man sensually, the angels of the sky, the angels of the earth, the angels of mercy, and the angels of wrath curse him. And Allah decrees for him a place in Hell. O, what a dreadful place it is!”

(Fiqh al-Ridha)

10. The Holy Prophet (S) has said,

“Allah shall punish for a thousand years in Hell, the man who kisses a boy with passion.”

(Mustadrak ul-Wasa’il.)

11. The Holy Prophet (S) has stated:

“Make separate bed for your children above ten years. Two brothers and two sisters and a brother and a sister should not be made to sleep on the same bed.”

(Wasa’il ul-Shi’a.)
 

@kadhim, I have used some words which I shouldn't have used. So accept my sincere excuse for all those arrows which are now out and I can only excuse for what I have said. If you are truly researching on this subject, I have shared with you my view point and the verses of Quran & ahadith as well. 

Hope that these may be helpful to you. 

In the end, I just want to say that there is no need to twist the meaning of above verses, the case against homosexuality is so clear that one cannot find any exception for it. Rather what the few ahadith above could mean that even considering homosexuality as permissible is tantamount to kufr. 

Wassalam!!

[Ibn Tayyar]

7 hours ago, kadhim said:

Was.

I’m not sure what you’re looking for here.

I already gave my perspective about all of these points and have nothing further to add. A friendly reminder that all of these are in relation to one particular alternate hypothesis for the story of Lot, namely that it was all about rape.

I gave a defense of that reading in response to the claim that it is just an unimaginable, ridiculous reading that can’t be taken seriously. I patiently interpreted all the relevant verses in that light. I even pointed out some places where it offers explanation of points where the traditional reading has nothing to say, and where you yourself could find nothing to say. 

And at the same time, I was more than clear that it is not even my preferred reading. So that’s about as much as I have to say about something that isn’t even my view on the issue.

Good day.

I disagree with your conclusion, and maintain that yes, indeed it is a unserious reading, and that you failed to address the traditionalist points adequately.

I will however thank you on a fruitful discussion, and wish you tawfiq in finding the truth. Have a blessed day brother.

[kadhim]

7 hours ago, Cool said:

I think you need to gather more information on this. Have you heard of term المخنث ? 

The link I shared earlier has discussed this subjected and have cited few ahadith from Sunni sources:

https://www.mpvusa.org/sexual-diversity

And we too have some ahadith in our books about this topic. 

I’m familiar with the classical term mukhannath. The thing is the Arabs didn’t really have a tight modern definition of the word. It meant “a man who makes himself like a woman,” and seems to have covered a number of different things. 

 

 

7 hours ago, Cool said:

Brother,there is no such thing as 1-2% minority. Those who say they have no attraction in opposite sex but have attraction in same sex are liars. Its like saying of a north pole of magnet that I have no attraction in south pole, I am attracted towards north pole. And we know that only opposite poles attract each other. 

Consider a male being sexually attracted towards a male, in what capacity the other male would serve his sexual satisfactions? In what capacity would he behave? At least one of them have to act as female which he is not.

Denying evident aspects of reality because they are uncomfortable to one’s ideology is a path to kufr, the covering of truth.

Moreover, a human—and you’ll want to sit down; this is shocking—is not a magnet. 

7 hours ago, Cool said:

This is such a disgusting sick mental state that nothing good can come out of any such relationship. Don't you just realize that?

One of the things you discover when you actually take the time to meet and get to know these people is that they are on the whole stunningly normal people. One couple I rented a room from one year in grad school, I haven’t kept in touch, but I look them up sometimes on Facebook. 25 years. Some of the nicest, most hospitable people I have met.

Who do you think you are to say what good can and can’t come out of someone’s relationship. What arrogance is this? What kind of mental state is that? 
 

 

[kadhim]

6 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

Did you even read the article presented to you?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6

First of all, check your roll. I’m your servant reading articles you stuff in my face on command. This is a discussion forum. No one gets to plunk an article or book here and get to expect it gets read. If you want to share an idea, share the idea. 

Coincidentally though, I have previously read it. You may want to sit down for this, but I wouldn’t put myself out here without doing my research first. 

The question is, did you read it? And more importantly, did you understand it? I have my doubts, because you’re using it to advance conclusions the authors would not actually endorse. This “ha! It’s not totally genetic!” from religious conservatives is a red herring. 

Though many details are fuzzy, the general consensus is that it’s some combination of genetics, womb environment, and early childhood, well before the child is aware of what sex is even about, and is, beyond this, irreversible. 

It’s not totally genetically determined, but all signs are it is determined by multiple factors without any choice in the matter by the individual. Which, as intelligent people will recognize, gets you to the same place for all intents and purposes. If a set of random factors just come together to constantly churn out a certain level of gay people, who cares what those factors are? It’s an area for scientists to figure out but doesn’t change the ethical equation. 

6 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

Wait, wait, wait. Hang on. You think that Allah would be so unclear so as to allow for a misinterpretation of His words on such a large scale?

Okay, the Quran has clear and unclear verses.

But Ahlulbayt as well? They also didn't give us enough to deal with this issue? 

Where did you get the impression I said the early community and ahlulbayt misinterpreted it?

I think to the extent we have their actual words, they interpreted things correctly for the groups of people they were actually aware of.

But they were not aware of some cases that we moderners are aware of, and so we misinterpret when we apply the precedents robotically without mindfulness.

6 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

And by the way, the only reason you quoted any verse or hadeeth was to give it a twisted, biased, made-up meaning. Because if you quoted and read it how it was actually said, it would disprove your whole argument.

This is your opinion. But unless you can point to where I read texts and skipped words or gave them meanings they don’t have or interpolated things into the text without any contextual reason based on other texts or background understanding, then your critique is subjective rather than objective. 
 

 

Edited September 5, 2022 by kadhim

[Cool]

1 hour ago, kadhim said:

Who do you think you are to say what good can and can’t come out of someone’s relationship. What arrogance is this? What kind of mental state is that?

Please do not tag me after that as I am not willing to engage further. 

I am nothing to say that & neither have I said that. 

بَلْ أَنْتُمْ قَوْمٌ عَادُونَ 

This is Quran. Now keep searching goodness in transgression. They are just opposites. 

4 hours ago, Cool said:

إِنَّ أَهْلَهَا كَانُوا ظَالِمِينَ

Keep looking for goodness in injustice. 

[khizarr]

On 9/3/2022 at 10:00 PM, Patient Warrior said:

Lol? He's literally said nothing of worth. I read his posts; he's cherry picking certain verses and attempting to straw man with linguistics. Why doesn't he address the studies I've posted above demonstrating that homosexuality is learned not inherited?

No one here argued that it is "inherited". I'm not saying it can't be, it's just that I am not going to use that sort of argument on an ethical issue. Something having a biological cause =/= heritability. 

While there is no “gay gene", there is overwhelming evidence of a biological basis for sexual orientation that is programmed into the brain prior to birth based on a jumble of genetics and prenatal conditions, none of which the fetus chooses. There is a level of nature at work here. This much is, in fact, maintained by modern science. The environmental cues for its manifestation, which I am sure do exist, are not entirely known. It's still a very grey area. Also, I did go back to see the studies that you posted on the previous page, just to gauge the quality of thought you're bringing to this thread. I had a good laugh at the "They also tend to introduce pedophilia as we're now seeing in their communities and pride parades. The cycle of homosexuality can be linked with child molestation as well see the following studies." This is such an old myth, but it's not surprising to see it being thrown around in your crop of people as "facts".

On 9/3/2022 at 10:00 PM, Patient Warrior said:

Is actually doing mental gymnastics in front of all of us and you cheer leading for him because he's challenging "fundamentalism" isn't helping him unfortunately. But don't worry I'm sure he'll continue to make further posts where he winks at the end to demonstrate he made a point.

Oh, man. Someone got their nerves touched. 

On 9/3/2022 at 10:00 PM, Patient Warrior said:

Says who, you? Atheist philosopher David Benatar explains those who promote "sexual liberation" open the doors to rape as a "human right".

This article is about promiscuity, not sexuality as it relates to adult, homosexual relationships. What does an article on promiscuity and rape have to do with allowing people to enter relationships with others of their own sex? Are you saying that people who have consensual, long-term relationships are opening the doors to rape?

On 9/3/2022 at 10:00 PM, Patient Warrior said:

Unfortunately for you regardless of your feelings, your friend Kadhim doesn't define objective moral values, God does. "This is the Book! There is no doubt about it" 2:2

Yeah, and that God is fair and just. It's time to stop illustrating God as a sadistic monster. 

Edited September 5, 2022 by khizarr

[Patient Warrior]

2 hours ago, khizarr said:

While there is no “gay gene", there is overwhelming evidence of a biological basis for sexual orientation that is programmed into the brain prior to birth based on a jumble of genetics and prenatal conditions, none of which the fetus chooses

No there isn't. Your "moral" argument is that if it can't be helped God would justify it other wise he is unjust. By the way this is the same fallacy atheists attempt to demonstrate with the dilemma of evil.

2 hours ago, khizarr said:

This is such an old myth, but it's not surprising to see it being thrown around in your crop of people as "facts".

This is how I know for a fact you lack any reading comprehension. If it wasn't evident from the fact that you can't read the Quran this for sure has cemented it. The very article you posted on the first myth has a scientist who's been criticized by the same pro-LGBT community who claims that the scientific community is censoring even more damning evidence. Many pro-LGBT papers don't follow the APA's own standards in order to get away with bias data.

 

If you ask nicely I'll even highlight more for you. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2466/17.CP.4.24

2 hours ago, khizarr said:

I had a good laugh

Here let's have a nice laugh together. Why is it that you're claiming to be on such a superior moral high ground than the actual Muslims in this thread, then when I post scientific studies you freeze up and return with a bias article? Here let's look at the data together.

Oh would you look at that, they really are raping kids. If you ask extra nicely I can walk you through the math. But surely that's where you excel right? It's definitely not the reading, surely?

2 hours ago, khizarr said:

This article is about promiscuity

Can we at least try? Try to remember the points @Mahdavistand @Cool were proposing to you, okay? The article is about sexual liberation and how it opens the doors to hedonism. Published and recorded by a non-bias atheist philosopher. You were weeping about the parallel duality of how one door opens the other.

Still keeping up?

2 hours ago, khizarr said:

What does an article on promiscuity and rape have to do with allowing people to enter relationships with others of their own sex? Are you saying that people who have consensual, long-term relationships are opening the doors to rape?

You didn't even read it. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because I genuinely can't seem to understand how you arrived to that conclusion.

2 hours ago, khizarr said:

Yeah, and that God is fair and just. It's time to stop illustrating God as a sadistic monster. 

The LGBT community is a disease to the world. You're really not read up or even educated on the topic. You came here to (I know it bothers you) to cheerlead for Kadhim. Trying to introduce liberal and secular ideology into the religion that's already been perfected for us. Trying to create a moral ethical dilemma that contradicts with God's eternal justice. Despite us constantly posting hadiths, ayat and actual studies that they're destructive to society as a whole, you still hold on to your ignorance.

There's really no point in engaging dialogue with you. You're not going to change your stance and just like the people you defend you have no moral compass worth appealing to.

"Must you really approach men with lust instead of women? Nay, but you are people without any awareness of right and wrong!" (27:55)

"but as for those who abandon themselves to wrongdoing - they are indeed but fuel for the fires of hell!’" 72:15

 

Edited September 5, 2022 by Patient Warrior

[علوي]

6 hours ago, kadhim said:

First of all, check your roll. I’m your servant reading articles you stuff in my face on command. This is a discussion forum. No one gets to plunk an article or book here and get to expect it gets read. If you want to share an idea, share the idea.

??

It wasn't even me pasting it...??

6 hours ago, kadhim said:

Coincidentally though, I have previously read it. You may want to sit down for this, but I wouldn’t put myself out here without doing my research first. 

The question is, did you read it? And more importantly, did you understand it? I have my doubts, because you’re using it to advance conclusions the authors would not actually endorse. This “ha! It’s not totally genetic!” from religious conservatives is a red herring. 

Though many details are fuzzy, the general consensus is that it’s some combination of genetics, womb environment, and early childhood, well before the child is aware of what sex is even about, and is, beyond this, irreversible. 

It’s not totally genetically determined, but all signs are it is determined by multiple factors without any choice in the matter by the individual. Which, as intelligent people will recognize, gets you to the same place for all intents and purposes. If a set of random factors just come together to constantly churn out a certain level of gay people, who cares what those factors are? It’s an area for scientists to figure out but doesn’t change the ethical equation.

Well, it means that it's not natural. So when people say "if God is against homosexuality then why did He create gay people', the response is that the main reason (75-92%) that gay people are gay is because of 'environmental' and 'cultural' factors. 

And this is what I mentioned about the patience that these people must have.

6 hours ago, kadhim said:

Where did you get the impression I said the early community and ahlulbayt misinterpreted it?

Where did you get the impression that I said that you said they misinterpreted it? I never claimed or alluded to that.

6 hours ago, kadhim said:

I think to the extent we have their actual words, they interpreted things correctly for the groups of people they were actually aware of.

But they were not aware of some cases that we moderners are aware of, and so we misinterpret when we apply the precedents robotically without mindfulness.

What about our 'modern' scholars? They misinterpret it as well? You're the only person who interprets it this way?

6 hours ago, kadhim said:

This is your opinion. But unless you can point to where I read texts and skipped words or gave them meanings they don’t have or interpolated things into the text without any contextual reason based on other texts or background understanding, then your critique is subjective rather than objective. 

I don't feel the need to respond to this. Like I mentioned, you're one of the only people who give the Quran this reading. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions (including thousands of scholars) adhere to the words of Ahlulbayt (a). 

[kadhim]

3 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

Well, it means that it's not natural. So when people say "if God is against homosexuality then why did He create gay people', the response is that the main reason (75-92%) that gay people are gay is because of 'environmental' and 'cultural' factors. 

Before I start with this, an aside. 10-25% of variation explained by one factor (or to be precise, one type of factor) for a psychological and behavioural phenomenon as complex as homosexuality is extraordinary. If you turn that into a correlation (square root), that’s somewhere between r=0.300 and r=0.500. That’s a powerful explanatory factor. That’s a big causative factor in social science terms. I’m not sure why the authors chose to title the study expressed in negative terms (click bait reasons I guess), but it’s actually quite a powerful positive result in establishing the genetic link. It not only ties down a statistical link, but tracks it down to specific gene loci. It’s a remarkable result. 

Tangent over. 

With that said, coming back to a more direct brief critique of your reasoning here, which is problematic.

First of all, reading this 75-90% and concluding it is “not natural” is mushy thinking.

First of all, you’re implicitly setting nature = genetics. This is not really correct. Researchers tend to think probably the most significant factor apart from genetics is prenatal conditions in the womb, hormones or other chemical factors. Scientifically, is the womb not part of nature? I don’t see how you argue that. Theologically, is the womb not a place where we would say God creates the human being? Given Quranic passages about how God knits us together in the womb in stages, I don’t see how you argue that either.

As for what’s left, post-natal factors, I think it’s incumbent on you folks who would take the existence of a post-natal component as some sort of vindication of your “stay the course” views to more clearly lay out your thinking in detail. Why you think this suddenly lets you off the hook. 

Gay people generally report the same life story. They get to puberty, the boys around them start liking the girls and vice versa, but for them it’s just different. Whatever that post-natal part comes from, whether it’s one or two or a dozen little things, it seems to happen early on, and everything we see says it’s irreversible. 

If that’s how it happens, how does that alter the moral calculus at all? You need to spell this out.

I don’t see where it alters the ethical calculation. The person is that way through no doing or choice of his own, because of factors that happened mostly or entirely before he was even aware of what sex and sexuality were. And he can’t change it. How do the specifics of the causes change that basic reality of the situation and the ethical problems it poses? 

Even from a theological standpoint. Events that impact and alter us early in our life outside of of our control—what do we routinely call that? “An act of God.” “It is God’s will.” No? 

I think you guys need to more carefully explain why you are changing your whole notion of God and attribution of causes if you are suddenly going to consider this not “God made him that way.” A kid gets polio at 5 and has his legs paralyzed for life, we would usually say that’s God’s will. But if events in a kid’s life before 5, combined with events in the womb and genetics conspire to make a kid gay at puberty, that’s not God’s will? Where is the consistency here? 

I think you guys have some explaining to do. 

[علوي]

5 hours ago, kadhim said:

Before I start with this, an aside. 10-25% of variation explained by one factor (or to be precise, one type of factor) for a psychological and behavioural phenomenon as complex as homosexuality is extraordinary. If you turn that into a correlation (square root), that’s somewhere between r=0.300 and r=0.500. That’s a powerful explanatory factor. That’s a big causative factor in social science terms. I’m not sure why the authors chose to title the study expressed in negative terms (click bait reasons I guess), but it’s actually quite a powerful positive result in establishing the genetic link. It not only ties down a statistical link, but tracks it down to specific gene loci. It’s a remarkable result. 

So not only do you interpret the words of Allah however you wish, but you do the same with scientists? Come on, man. 

The original paper of this study stated:

Quote

In aggregate, all tested genetic variants accounted for 8 to 25% of variation in same-sex sexual behavior, only partially overlapped between males and females, and do not allow meaningful prediction of an individual’s sexual behavior.

Take your time processing those words.

5 hours ago, kadhim said:

First of all, reading this 75-90% and concluding it is “not natural” is mushy thinking.

First of all, you’re implicitly setting nature = genetics. This is not really correct. Researchers tend to think probably the most significant factor apart from genetics is prenatal conditions in the womb, hormones or other chemical factors.

Please provide proof before I take even more time out of my day to respond.

5 hours ago, kadhim said:

As for what’s left, post-natal factors, I think it’s incumbent on you folks who would take the existence of a post-natal component as some sort of vindication of your “stay the course” views to more clearly lay out your thinking in detail. Why you think this suddenly lets you off the hook. 

Gay people generally report the same life story. They get to puberty, the boys around them start liking the girls and vice versa, but for them it’s just different. Whatever that post-natal part comes from, whether it’s one or two or a dozen little things, it seems to happen early on, and everything we see says it’s irreversible. 

If that’s how it happens, how does that alter the moral calculus at all? You need to spell this out.

I don’t see where it alters the ethical calculation. The person is that way through no doing or choice of his own, because of factors that happened mostly or entirely before he was even aware of what sex and sexuality were. And he can’t change it. How do the specifics of the causes change that basic reality of the situation and the ethical problems it poses? 

Even from a theological standpoint. Events that impact and alter us early in our life outside of of our control—what do we routinely call that? “An act of God.” “It is God’s will.” No? 

I think you guys need to more carefully explain why you are changing your whole notion of God and attribution of causes if you are suddenly going to consider this not “God made him that way.” A kid gets polio at 5 and has his legs paralyzed for life, we would usually say that’s God’s will. But if events in a kid’s life before 5, combined with events in the womb and genetics conspire to make a kid gay at puberty, that’s not God’s will? Where is the consistency here? 

I think you guys have some explaining to do. 

I've already explained...but I'll explain yet again.

Thanks for mentioning the kid with polio.

This kid had his legs paralyzed for life as a trial from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). The trial is so that he can patiently bear the hardships that come along with it. If he successfully bears these hardships, then his reward will be increased. If he doesn't, he doesn't get (or deserve) a reward.

Similarly, if a person is tried with the trial of having same-sex attraction, they are to endure this hardship just in the same way that pedophiles and people attracted to their mahrams restrain their desires. 

If you say that it's unjust to let them restrain their desires, then it's also unjust for people who commit incest to restrain their desires. 

I already wrote before:

Quote

The solution is patience. This is their trial in this life. Other people suffer from anger management, disability, etc. These people suffer from homosexuality. So if they are patient and restrain their desire, in the same way that people with anger issues restrain their anger, they will be given a greater reward because they passed the test. But if they are not patient and act according to their desire, not according to Allah's sharia, they have failed the test.

That's the explanation for you.

[Ashvazdanghe]

23 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

The Alawites don't legalize same-sex marriage... at least not the ones that I know. I know some Alawites and none of them accept same-sex marriage as something that is permissible. 

On 9/5/2022 at 9:51 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

He believed in the marriage with mahrams as justifiable, and also same-sex marriage of men.

I don't know about the opinion of Mohammad Ibn Nusayr himself, but the Nusayris (Alawites) of today most definitely do not accept homosexuality. Or at least the ones I know.

Salam I totally agree with you anyway it's classical definition of  Nusayris which enemies of Alawites has called Alawites as Nusayris which everybody in shia world has known Alawits totally separate group from Nusayris which only enemies of shias especially Takfiri terrorists likewise Daesh/ISIS terorists have labeled Alawits as Nusayris just for justifaction their Takfir of Alawitis  so then masscaring them. 

[kadhim]

15 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

Take your time processing those words.

This is a muddily written paragraph. Let’s see if I can clear this up for you. 

They have statistical evidence that, collectively, genes combine to explain 8-25%. No individual genes on their own however serve as predictors. In other words it is a lot of different genes together adding up to give that 8-25%.

It’s something like height. A person’s height is a mix of genetics, experience in the womb (e.g mother’s nutrition and stress levels), and post-natal environment (e.g. nutrition). Statistically, there is a clear genetic component to height. But it’s not the only factor. And there is not (as far as I am aware) any one or two standout height genes. It’s a bunch of small factors that add up. 

Part of being able to actually meaningfully read research lit is the statistical background to understand some of these nuances. 

15 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

Please provide proof before I take even more time out of my day to respond.

Here’s a random example that gives a reasonable summary in the abstract:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13558358.2020.1818541

“the peer reviewed scientific literature clearly shows that a combination of genetic and environmental factors contribute to sexual orientation, with approximately one third of variance currently attributed to the former. Much of the known environmental influence appears to be intra-uterine and there is no currently convincing evidence that social environment plays a significant part.”

This is a summary/lit review type piece. If you’re legitimately interested in learning, you can use that as a jumping off and follow biblio references to dig deeper.

15 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

I've already explained...but I'll explain yet again.

Thanks for mentioning the kid with polio.

This kid had his legs paralyzed for life as a trial from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). The trial is so that he can patiently bear the hardships that come along with it. If he successfully bears these hardships, then his reward will be increased. If he doesn't, he doesn't get (or deserve) a reward.

Similarly, if a person is tried with the trial of having same-sex attraction, they are to endure this hardship

I’ll just refer back to earlier where I and others pointed out the problems with that reply. I won’t bore anyone with repetition. 

[Laayla]

Bismehe Ta3ala,

Assalam Alikum.

Alhamd'Allah the Quran is safeguarded from distortion, but unfortunately when it comes to commentary any Joe Shmoe comes along and uses it according to their whimsical desires.

Prophet Lut for thirty years preached to the Sodomites against homosexuality.  His wife LA was even admonished for her actions, informing the Sodomites when the Prophet had guests in his house, by going on top of the roof and sending smoke signals.

For the younger generation who is reading this thread, please don't be deceived by the posters who are posing themselves as Shia and trying to indoctrinate you to embrace the alphabet group.  

Please research through al-islam.org and visit your local imam and ask questions one-to-one, and/or send an email to your marjaa'

Whatever these imposters are posting they're trying to create a satanic seed in your mind to accept this indecent, depraved, and grave sin of homosexuality.

A few pages back, I posted about the liberalism ideology.  They want to destroy any type of religion, any sense of abiding by authentic books, and belief in Tawheed.

Below are some responses from our religious guides.

Why is homosexuality Haram when it is an attraction that such people naturally feel and cannot control?

 

Sayyed Mohammad Al-Musawi, Sayyed Mohammad al-Musawi is originally from Iraq and heads up the World Ahlul Bayt Islamic League in London. Other than being involved in various humanitarian projects, he frequently responds to...Answered 2 years ago

Just having an attraction toward something can never justify doing it when it contradicts with the discipline set by The Creator who distinguishes between good attraction and bad attraction. Many persons have sexual attraction towards incest or children or married women and men etc. It must be clear that just feeling the sexual attraction does not legitimize what you are attracted to. Many people are attracted to drugs and billions of dollars are spent in today's world on drugs, but can such attraction legitimize the drugs? Desire is the originator of attraction and it can be be pure desire which initiates attraction towards good things, and can be bad desire which initiates bad attractions.

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) who created us and every thing and knows about every thing has told us to avoid impure desires and never go after evil attractions. In fact it is one of the best forms of piousness is to go against the impure desires (And as for him who feared standing in front of his Lord (Allah), and restrained himself from impure desires, then the Paradise will be his abode. (Sura 79, Verse 40 and 41).

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) did not forbid any act but only because it is harmful )ويحرم عليهم الخبائث (Sura 7, Verse 157)

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) mentioned in Quran (And remember (prophet) Lut, We granted him prophet hood and knowledge and we saved him from the people who used to do evil acts. (21:74) ونجيناه من لقرية التي كانت تعمل الخبائث

Every evil act is forbidden whether some people are attracted to it or no. Millions are attracted to alcohol, drugs, pork, and fornication etc but it remain evil acts in the reality, so it remains forbidden (Haraam). Forbidding evil acts and impure desires is essential to  save life and human beings.

Wassalam.

 

Seyed Ali Shobayri, Seyed Ali Shobayri is of mixed Iranian and Scottish descent who found the path of the Ahlul Bayt (a) by his own research. He holds a BA in Islamic Studies from Middlesex University through the...Answer updated 2 years ago

Bismillah, 

Asalamu Alaykom, 

One isn’t punished for merely having an attraction to the same gender. We won’t go into the reasons as to why this happens as this is a whole different discussion, however there exists ‘unnatural attractions’ amongst many people.

The point is that just because a person has a certain feeling or attraction, it doesn’t mean that they should automatically act on this. 

Someone could have an attraction to the opposite gender, yet it doesn’t mean that they may act on this by committing fornication and haram actions. We even find people who are attracted to animals or small babies and they may not have control of this attraction. The duty for those who have such unnatural attractions, is for them to not act on them. 

Unfortunately due to the atheist, subjective morality which is appearing these days, some are now even justifying immoral practices such as incest! 

We shouldn’t assume that just because society starts to widely accept a practice, that it is normal and permissible. We should always remember that our worldview is extracted from the Quran and sunnah.   

If a man is attracted to other men but refuses to act on this and commit forbidden actions, then he will be rewarded inshallah. If we use the logic that him having such an attraction is ‘natural and uncontrollable’ then the same argument could be put forth for those who have incest related attractions. 

There are converts to Islam who had such an attraction but didn’t act on this. 

May Allah grant you success

 

God keep us steadfast on His religion.

 

M3 Salamah, FE AMIN ALLAH

[علوي]

8 hours ago, kadhim said:

This is a muddily written paragraph. Let’s see if I can clear this up for you. 

They have statistical evidence that, collectively, genes combine to explain 8-25%. No individual genes on their own however serve as predictors. In other words it is a lot of different genes together adding up to give that 8-25%.

It’s something like height. A person’s height is a mix of genetics, experience in the womb (e.g mother’s nutrition and stress levels), and post-natal environment (e.g. nutrition). Statistically, there is a clear genetic component to height. But it’s not the only factor. And there is not (as far as I am aware) any one or two standout height genes. It’s a bunch of small factors that add up. 

Part of being able to actually meaningfully read research lit is the statistical background to understand some of these nuances. 

Here’s a random example that gives a reasonable summary in the abstract:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13558358.2020.1818541

“the peer reviewed scientific literature clearly shows that a combination of genetic and environmental factors contribute to sexual orientation, with approximately one third of variance currently attributed to the former. Much of the known environmental influence appears to be intra-uterine and there is no currently convincing evidence that social environment plays a significant part.”

This is a summary/lit review type piece. If you’re legitimately interested in learning, you can use that as a jumping off and follow biblio references to dig deeper.

I’ll just refer back to earlier where I and others pointed out the problems with that reply. I won’t bore anyone with repetition. 

 

I responded to these points already by saying explaining how just because the person doesn't choose their environmental and cultural situation, doesn't mean Allah is unjust. 

[kadhim]

8 hours ago, Laayla said:

Bismehe Ta3ala,

Assalam Alikum.

Alhamd'Allah the Quran is safeguarded from distortion, but unfortunately when it comes to commentary any Joe Shmoe comes along and uses it according to their whimsical desires.

Prophet Lut for thirty years preached to the Sodomites against homosexuality.  His wife LA was even admonished for her actions, informing the Sodomites when the Prophet had guests in his house, by going on top of the roof and sending smoke signals.

For the younger generation who is reading this thread, please don't be deceived by the posters who are posing themselves as Shia and trying to indoctrinate you to embrace the alphabet group.  

Please research through al-islam.org and visit your local imam and ask questions one-to-one, and/or send an email to your marjaa'

Whatever these imposters are posting they're trying to create a satanic seed in your mind to accept this indecent, depraved, and grave sin of homosexuality.

A few pages back, I posted about the liberalism ideology.  They want to destroy any type of religion, any sense of abiding by authentic books, and belief in Tawheed.

Wa alaikum asalaam Laayla, 

I appreciate your passion for defending your point of view. I can identify with that a lot, as you can probably guess. I really wonder though why you feel the need to be so vicious and slanderous. What is the point with the maligning of intentions and character assassination? Is that really necessary? I mean, I get it. You disagree. Strongly. You think I’m wrong. But beyond the poor akhlaq this displays, it displays a certain lack of iman as well. We have a passage in the Quran, “truth stands out clearly from error.” (2:256) So given that, if you’re really confident you’re right and I’m wrong I have to wonder what you’re afraid of here.

I’m glad you have so much confidence in my abilities to “corrupt the youth of Athens.” I mean, I’m good. But taking me on 10-on-1, you should feel confident that your guys can take me down—if you believe truth is on your side.

Myself, I personally do have faith in truth overcoming error. So any youth reading this, by all means, please do be skeptical of everything I say here. Be skeptical of everyone. Please do read al-islam.org. Please do go to your local a’lims and visiting a’lims and pose your questions. Even pose some of my questions. Inshallah, maybe they will have something to say that convinces you and gives you certainty.