Our Beacon Forum Index Back to Homepage
Our Beacon
Salamun alaikum!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

"A Jihad for Love" ???
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Our Beacon Forum Index -> General Discussions and News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dr. Shabbir
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 1331
Location: Florida, USA

PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear AY and Sisters UmmeAimon & Courtney,

I played the most popular game among the Commonwealth countries, Cricket (slightly similar to baseball).

There is no better feeling for a batsman (batter) to strike a ball clean, high, wide, long and handsome and watch it sail over the fielders.

That's me. Smile

I love your debate watching the ball struck clean and going high, wide, long and handsome.

May Allah bless you all?
_________________
Wassalam,
SA
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arnold Yasin Mol
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 5:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salaam dear sisters and uncle,

How I view the verse is, these were natural hetero-sexuals, and so their homo-sexual behaviour was unnatural and based probably on power-display and control as for example what happens in prisons today. These men were very simple-minded it seems when it came to their bodily-cravings.

When Lot said, not God, God just records the historical conversations in the Qur'an so we know what really happened, when Lot said to his people; 'at least turn your lusts to your natural inclinations and keep it within the relationship that is always made legal for you'.

In this he hoped they could control their lust, and also to make it develop into something based on love and not power. That is the power of a good partner.

Thus for me the verse shows how Lot tried to gradually transform his people back into a natural state. As they had turned into animal mindless ways of bodily cravings where no love was involved. When these cravings are fortified (mohsannat) in a relationship, they can be transformed into an expression of love instead of mindless lust and power.
Back to top
UmeAimon



Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 141
Location: UAE

PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salam,

So you mean to say in that society all natural homosexuals were either married to their natural male mates or not married at all?? and thus this is the reason this verse is talking about only the non naturals ones that were married! Some how I find it difficult to believe...

And how Lot SW could differentiate between naturals and non-naturals anyway, when some came to his house hearing about the two young men... he already knew they were non-naturals? How? just because they were married to their female-Azwaj! But they said specifically, when he told them there were girls they could have, that he knew well they were NOT interested in what he was offering!!!

Even now if someone comes up and acts up saying I am natural how would you tell ? a hormone test!! I do not think I can buy this point either.

jazakAllah

UmeAimon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arnold Yasin Mol
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 4:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Saqlaam sis,

UmeAimon wrote:

So you mean to say in that society all natural homosexuals were either married to their natural male mates or not married at all?? and thus this is the reason this verse is talking about only the non naturals ones that were married! Some how I find it difficult to believe...


Nowhere did I ever say that in the story of Lot natural homosexuals were present nor did I ever mention natural homosexuals were married back in those times.

You are confusing my statements wherein I mentioned that for TODAY'S society we could interpretate the terms of Azway/Rijaal/Nisaa gender-neutral when it comes to marriage laws that are directed to us.

When it comes to historical stories, I haven't found rijaal/nisaa to be gender-neutral. ONLY with laws and advices directed towards us and with some verses the term Azwaj doesn't refer to humans mingling, but to couple deeds or acts.

I have mentioned this several times already. Please see my earlier post:

"In my previous posts I had already explained that Rijaal & Nisaa can be understood gender-free in CERTAIN verses depending on the context (like for example the first line of 4:34). I introduced the concept for the understanding of marriage and relationship laws given in the Qur'an.
So your above post has nothing to do with the discussion on the Shahwat verse since it is clear from the context that here the terms Rijaal-Nisaa are gender-related. Since the verse is not talking a universal law (as the social & law verses that are directed to us), but is explaining a history, the context clearly defines gender-based meanings of rijaal-nisaa.
I hope you understand now, since you clearly didn't understand my earlier post where I already explained when gender-free understandings apply."


UmeAimon wrote:

Even now if someone comes up and acts up saying I am natural how would you tell ? a hormone test!! I do not think I can buy this point either.


Hetero- or homosexuality is identity. You will eventually know what you are over time. The majority of natural homosexuals will deny and fight it till their late twenties in many of the cases. A hormone-test could give an idea why you would have feelings for the same-sex as it would display higher levels of female-hormones (with male homosexuals) or male-hormones (with lesbians).

But as said before, hormones could be a main factor, but there are several others also. Plus this higher levels of opposite hormones could also only have been present during the pregnancy, and thus would only have affected the brain during their development.

These are all proven through authentic research.
Back to top
UmeAimon



Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 141
Location: UAE

PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salaam Arnold,

No dear I am not confused about nisa and rijal!
I need to know why would you not talk about/include natural homosexuals in that story, when you are trying to interpret Quran according to the research that says there are always 5-10% of people in the world who have opposite brains and such people are supposed/tend to be natural homosexuals! Did I understand this point of yours correct?

So my concern is, by not including naturals either you are saying there were no natural homosexuals at that time-of the "5-10% of world's natural population" there were none there, or if there were they were not among those who were punished right, as no verse makes any such distinction you must assume this because of the research!

Why I don’t buy this point- Since it’s what Lut SW who was saying and doing that is being described, if there were even a few naturals (which seems like a natural scenario according to the same research you believe and if one’s not biased while understanding) in that society, how could he have known from the ones that came to his house that they were not naturals and stopped them? Just because they were married! Shouldn’t Lut have given them the benefit of doubt instead of declaring them non naturals right away if there were even slightest chance of such peoples' presence anywhere in the world!
How could he assume all to be non naturals?

Plus isn’t Quran a complete guidance? Did any verse specify any difference between naturals or unnatural gays even when Lut’s story is repeated so many times? So that we could know there are naturals too instead of discovering now!! Quran is all about social order, humanity and it’s values, don’t you think, this was a good place where Allah could have described such naturals and legitimized them for the ease of humanity so these poor souls are left alone!!!
You made this thing universal by quoting a research but did Allah SW forgot to mention them!! Is 5-10% of population not worth mentioning so we know clearly.

Are you not trying to interpret Quran this way because you want to believe there are natural homosexuals, because you live in a society which has already accepted it as
a norm because of unwillingness of people to control there sexual conduct in ANY form and because of some research conducted that is interpreted in a certain way by people who already are biased towards this way of life.
Do we not need to remain objective while understanding Quran too?
And yes I do believe thats just another way of life people choose to live nothing more and they should be brave enough to admit it if they have once.

I'll come to the researches and use of words in a while...

thanks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arnold Yasin Mol
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salaam sis,

UmeAimon wrote:

No dear I am not confused about nisa and rijal!
I need to know why would you not talk about/include natural homosexuals in that story, when you are trying to interpret Quran according to the research that says there are always 5-10% of people in the world who have opposite brains and such people are supposed/tend to be natural homosexuals! Did I understand this point of yours correct?


I do not believe nisaa-rijaal or gender-neutral in this story because:

1. Only since at most 200 years are marriages based on love accepted. Before this almnost 90% of all the marriages among humans were arranged by the parents or direct family. Thus I do not believe there were any gay-marriages since only for the last 150 years marriages are seen as a love-relationship and not only a child-creating relationship.

Since gays do not create children, to make them marry seemed illogical in the past. Today marriages are more seen as contracts on how to deal with propertity and rights of the partners, and so now gays marrying have become a logical understanding.

So in the time of Lot, marriage was only between male and females as they were meant to create children.

2. Let's say Lot's people were around 250 men. 95% of 250 means that not more then 10-15 men could have been natural homosexuals. Thus it is impossible Lot was only focussed on these 10-15 since it is clear all the men were being aggressive towards him.

In the old times, it was rare for a natural homosexual to fully develop its identity, and see itself as a natural homosexual. Thus it logical also to assume that the natural homosexuals present were taken up in the same misplaced shahwat of using sex as power and oppression as for example done in some prisons today among prisoners.

UmeAimon wrote:

Why I don’t buy this point- Since it’s what Lut SW who was saying and doing that is being described, if there were even a few naturals (which seems like a natural scenario according to the same research you believe and if one’s not biased while understanding) in that society, how could he have known from the ones that came to his house that they were not naturals and stopped them? How could he assume all to be non naturals?


I do not know how much Lot understood it all, or how much Allah had explained it to him. From my understanding, it is a whole crowd coming to Lot and threatening him. But next to this, rarely will you find natural homosexuals behaving in such an aggressive and oppressive way. Not today, nor in history. In Roman and Greek culture, homosexuality among heterosexuals was culturally accepted. When this was attacked by for example Christians, the Romans reacted very aggressively towards Christians.

UmeAimon wrote:

Plus isn’t Quran a complete guidance? Did any verse specify any difference between naturals or unnatural gays even when Lut’s story is repeated so many times? So that we could know there are naturals too instead of discovering now!! Quran is all about social order, humanity and it’s values, don’t you think, this was a good place where Allah could have described such naturals and legitimized them for the ease of humanity so these poor souls are left alone!!!

You made this thing universal by quoting a research but did Allah SW forgot to mention them!! Is 5-10% of population not worth mentioning so we know clearly.


There are people as hermaphradites, does the Qur'an mention these specifically? Not to my knowledge is there any direct verse on this. But we cannot deny reality that hermaphrodities are born who have both sexual organs and can have children.

The Qur'an always discusses there are never 2 extremes, but phases between 2 extremes. You have salt water, sweet water, and the between phase of barzakh.

There are some verses discussing the between phases of the 2 extremes male and female. For example:

42:49 ..... It prepares for whom It wills females, and It prepares for whom It wills males. 50 Or It marries together the males and the females, and It makes those whom It wills to be aqeeman....

Aqama means to not be productive, to not have or want children, to be sterile.

From a Biological point of view, this clearly describes natural homosexuals as they are not productive when it comes to procreation, only when they use hetero-sexual means of procreation they can have children. But this is not their natural inclination.

Also when we understand the verses discussing law and marriage using rijaal-nisaa-azwaja as gender-neutral, then the verses become relevant also for natural homosexuals, and thus a practical solution in a society can be created that are in lines with relaity and the natural laws.

UmeAimon wrote:

Are you not trying to interpret Quran this way because you want to believe there are natural homosexuals, because you live in a society which has already accepted it as
a norm because of unwillingness of people to control there sexual conduct in ANY form and because of some research conducted that is interpreted in a certain way by people who already are biased towards this way of life.
Do we not need to remain objective while understanding Quran too?


As I said before, I have thought long and hard on this and discussed it much with some of my Arabic teachers and other Qur'an researchers. I have also thought long on objectivity on my ideas and views. In my society, drugs and sex without relationships are also normal and accepted, but I do reject these. So to believe I hold a different view just because I come from a society where it is accepted is not a correct counter-statement as it contradicts from example my rejection of free-sex and the use of drugs.

For me, the change of thought came when I started researching the reality of homosexuality among mankind in general, and started to see it contradicted the normal approach to homosexuality when researching the Qur'an.

Homosexuals are social productive and beneficial persons to society as heterosexuals can be. They have the same percentage of monogamous relationships as heterosexuals. Of many, you would not know they are homosexuals as they live just like you and me.

As I have studied Biochemistry for almost 4 years and Psychology for 2 years both on college-level, the studies of hormonal participation during pregnancy and the concept of sexual identity which I got during my studies, showed me also that it is logical from a natural point of view that homosexuality emerges in a higher mammal society, just as it does among the Bonobo's.

During my Theology study, my professor on Bible interpretation showed me how much of Christian interpretation methods had been taken over by the early Muslims and created a standard that has dominated Qur'an research for the last 1200 years. Even though we reject Hadith, many of the Christian approaches to life and what is seen as sin or morality are present in the cultures we grew up and thus still control our approaches and beliefs.

When seeing these realities and close studies of the text, the ideas I present here emerged, especially when I asked advice from professor Samia Adnan and Amina Wadud who are specialized Qur'anic Arabic and its view on reality, and who I deem very highly in their interpretation. When I saw they had come to similair conclusions, I knew my results were not subjective. Many things must still be discussed and better research much be done.

But as said before, reality cannot be dismissed. Natural homosexuality exists, and so we must understand how this impacts our understanding of the Qur'an. As I have true faith in the Qur'an trueness, I know our interpretation is wrong, not the text itself.
Back to top
Arnold Yasin Mol
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salaam aleikum,

UmeAimon wrote:

No dear I am not confused about nisa and rijal!
I need to know why would you not talk about/include natural homosexuals in that story, when you are trying to interpret Quran according to the research that says there are always 5-10% of people in the world who have opposite brains and such people are supposed/tend to be natural homosexuals! Did I understand this point of yours correct?


I do not believe nisaa-rijaal or gender-neutral in this story because:

1. Only since at most 200 years are marriages based on love accepted. Before this almost 90% of all the marriages among humans were arranged by the parents or direct family. Thus I do not believe there were any gay-marriages since only for the last 150 years marriages are seen as a love-relationship and not only a child-creating relationship.

Since gays do not create children, to make them marry seemed illogical in the past. Today marriages are more seen as contracts on how to deal with propertity and rights of the partners, and so now gays marrying have become a logical understanding.

So in the time of Lot, marriage was only between male and females as they were meant to create children.

2. Let's say Lot's people were around 250 men. 95% of 250 means that not more then 10-15 men could have been natural homosexuals. Thus it is impossible Lot was only focused on these 10-15 since it is clear all the men were being aggressive towards him.

In the old times, it was rare for a natural homosexual to fully develop its identity, and see itself as a natural homosexual. Thus it logical also to assume that the natural homosexuals present were taken up in the same misplaced shahwat of using sex as power and oppression as for example done in some prisons today among prisoners.

UmeAimon wrote:

Why I don’t buy this point- Since it’s what Lut SW who was saying and doing that is being described, if there were even a few naturals (which seems like a natural scenario according to the same research you believe and if one’s not biased while understanding) in that society, how could he have known from the ones that came to his house that they were not naturals and stopped them? How could he assume all to be non naturals?


I do not know how much Lot understood it all, or how much Allah had explained it to him. From my understanding, it is a whole crowd coming to Lot and threatening him. But next to this, rarely will you find natural homosexuals behaving in such an aggressive and oppressive way. Not today, nor in history. In Roman and Greek culture, homosexuality among heterosexuals was culturally accepted. When this was attacked by for example Christians, the Romans reacted very aggressively towards Christians.

UmeAimon wrote:

Plus isn’t Quran a complete guidance? Did any verse specify any difference between naturals or unnatural gays even when Lut’s story is repeated so many times? So that we could know there are naturals too instead of discovering now!! Quran is all about social order, humanity and it’s values, don’t you think, this was a good place where Allah could have described such naturals and legitimized them for the ease of humanity so these poor souls are left alone!!!

You made this thing universal by quoting a research but did Allah SW forgot to mention them!! Is 5-10% of population not worth mentioning so we know clearly.


There are people as hermaphrodites, does the Qur'an mention these specifically? Not to my knowledge is there any direct verse on this. But we cannot deny reality that hermaphrodites are born who have both sexual organs and can have children.

The Qur'an always discusses there are never 2 extremes, but phases between 2 extremes. You have salt water, sweet water, and the between phase of barzakh.

There are some verses discussing the between phases of the 2 extremes male and female. For example:

42:49 ..... It prepares for whom It wills females, and It prepares for whom It wills males. 50 Or It marries together the males and the females, and It makes those whom It wills to be aqeeman....

Aqama means to not be productive, to not have or want children, to be sterile.

From a Biological point of view, this clearly describes natural homosexuals as they are not productive when it comes to procreation, only when they use hetero-sexual means of procreation they can have children. But this is not their natural inclination.

Also when we understand the verses discussing law and marriage using rijaal-nisaa-azwaja as gender-neutral, then the verses become relevant also for natural homosexuals, and thus a practical solution in a society can be created that are in lines with reality and the natural laws.

UmeAimon wrote:

Are you not trying to interpret Quran this way because you want to believe there are natural homosexuals, because you live in a society which has already accepted it as
a norm because of unwillingness of people to control there sexual conduct in ANY form and because of some research conducted that is interpreted in a certain way by people who already are biased towards this way of life.
Do we not need to remain objective while understanding Quran too?


As I said before, I have thought long and hard on this and discussed it much with some of my Arabic teachers and other Qur'an researchers. I have also thought long on objectivity on my ideas and views. In my society, drugs and sex without relationships are also normal and accepted, but I do reject these. So to believe I hold a different view just because I come from a society where it is accepted is not a correct counter-statement as it contradicts from example my rejection of free-sex and the use of drugs.

Also the same could be said of you. Do you do not interpret the Qur’an in this way because you come from a culture that does not accept homosexuality? To stay objective is the most important thing in Qur’an and scientific research.

For me, the change of thought came when I started researching the reality of homosexuality among mankind in general, and started to see it contradicted the normal approach to homosexuality when researching the Qur'an.

Homosexuals are social productive and beneficial persons to society as heterosexuals can be. They have the same percentage of monogamous relationships as heterosexuals. Of many, you would not know they are homosexuals as they live just like you and me.

As I have studied Biochemistry for almost 4 years and Psychology for 2 years both on college-level, the studies of hormonal participation during pregnancy and the concept of sexual identity which I got during my studies, showed me also that it is logical from a natural point of view that homosexuality emerges in a higher mammal society, just as it does among the Bonobo's.

During my Theology study, my professor on Bible interpretation showed me how much of Christian interpretation methods had been taken over by the early Muslims and created a standard that has dominated Qur'an research for the last 1200 years. Even though we reject Hadith, many of the Christian approaches to life and what is seen as sin or morality are present in the cultures we grew up and thus still control our approaches and beliefs.

When seeing these realities and close studies of the text, the ideas I present here emerged, especially when I asked advice from Professor Samia Adnan and Amina Wadud who are specialized in Qur'anic Arabic and its view on reality, and who I deem very highly in their interpretation. When I saw they had come to similar conclusions, I knew my results were not subjective. Many things must still be discussed and better research much be done.

But as said before, reality cannot be dismissed. Natural homosexuality exists, and so we must understand how this impacts our understanding of the Qur'an and the reflections was correct or not.
Back to top
UmeAimon



Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 141
Location: UAE

PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salam Arnold,


You said marriages were seen as love relationship only for past 150-200 years! What?

Did you get this idea from Quran that love marriage is not allowed or was anyway discouraged or that one should marry only to have kids?

By saying today marriage is seen as contract of rights …. I hope by today you mean when Quran was revealed!

Which Quran have you been studying dear?

Do you believe a total Quranic society was established for even a short period 1400+ years ago?

What is the difference between love and lust to you, be specific?

Do you think all the researches conducted on the humans are on perfectly healthily brought-up individuals in perfect environment and conditions, by 100% honest and pious people and are 100% correct in order to make it a universal phenomenon? Are you that naïve or think most people who’ll buy this?

Where do you find the words that say the Lut’s nation was aggressive/attacking the guests of Lut( which by the way he knew were Allah’s messengers)? Yes you must assume!
All that could clearly be understood is that Lut was ashamed of their behavior and their condition was like those who are intoxicated, so homosexuality (if one does not have to assume so many things in order to prove his point) is nothing when practiced BUT a form of addiction. That addiction that is difficult to get rid of and so the easy way out is to make it natural! It’s like Allah says their persistence makes their acts and bad deeds alluring to them.

I am trying hard not to jump to any assumptions in order to stay objective BUT it’s not strange now to me how many times you have to assume things in order to prove what you are trying to prove from Quran. But the more you assume the more you contradict yourself and your arguments now seem more and like excuses (pardon my directness).

At one place you say in old time homosexuals could not fully develop themselves?
So all the Arabs new about was aggressive heterosexual’s kinds right!

You brought up 42:50 where Allah SWT is specifically talking about the genders!

Aqeela comes from aqm which mean a womb that cannot produce babies. Aqeela has been used for both males and females by Arabs symbolizing person who cannot make a child, willingly or unwillingly. There is no mention of their/humans want but how Allah designed humans neither was it understood that way ever. Hope you know the difference!

Now besides what you WANT to assume for naturals of now a days, my question remains why Allah not talk about them during Lut’s story clearly so we could know what nisa are and also which one of the pair, male with female brain or male with male brain? Oh no but what excuse does the male with male brain has to be in that relation, he is not natural is he or Rijal should only be used as men now?

Talking about azwaj, I would like to understand it as Quran itself has mentioned it as in
Many verses as simply and without any need of assumptions:

The Categorization of azwaaj is into two and by gender can be seen in 11:40 and 23:27 .

Allah SWT made pairs of what kind, we can see from 53:44 and 75:39.

Another beautiful verse is 7:189 describing clearly what azwaj are, ie of like nature, and that they are a male and a female so when one resides in other, the she carries the baby!

About Nisa now, how Quran described it and I would like to understand it as it is not as you want to assume, the reason you’ll know soon.

The verse that confirms who Nisa are and what the female sex is, is the verse 2:223.

2:223 for/ Nisa/ women are tithe for you / where you cultivate/ a place to sow a seed that grows!
This verse certainly gives us hint how can we categorized middle sex too, ie, those with wombs to make babies that can even make pairs easily.

Is it fair to use word nisa in a definition that specifies only females in a certain way according to their organ roles when it could mean something else too?

Ohh let me guess your assumption is that this verse is for that time only and at that time there were no naturals, as they could not assume their identity and only evolved much later!!

How can you then even think that the word Nisa can be used for a “male born with female brain” A word used by Arabs for weak one mentally/physically and sometimes both and bla bla, the one who are left behind as that’s how they thought of women!!

Allah used that word for women, only because it was used by Arabs like that and certainly does not consider the weakness because they of female brains!!

How can we say Nisa (a weaker one) can be used for so called natural homosexual males with a female brain… all because he has a female brain? What unjust! What discrimination!!!

Plus in 29:28,29 taqtaoonassabeel means to cut the sources of continued existence for humanity ie, natural way of child birth, not highway robbery!
And that should be the case of all such populations if they persist in their ways!

Other wise if they chose other ways to make babies to increase population Aqeela cannot be a natural homo afterall!

If we try to understand AlQuran according to what we want to believe, it’ll only distorts its meaning!!
But perhaps the kinds of argument I am getting from you it's difficult you'll understand and I should not carry on this discussion anymore!

jazakAllah
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arnold Yasin Mol
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salaam,

It is sad to see you use such an arrogant tone in your post, but it is logical with such a difficult subject to remain objective and neutral.

UmeAimon wrote:

You said marriages were seen as love relationship only for past 150-200 years! What?


Love as a dominant factor for marriage is only widely accepted for the last 200 years, yes. Before this, the majority of marriages in larger societies were controlled by the families. Please read Anthropology studies on this before responding.

UmeAimon wrote:

What is the difference between love and lust to you, be specific?


Love is being and sharing with a person you feel makes you complete and is one you need in all facets of life. Lust is based on a biological craving that can be directed at almost anything. In a love-relationship it is directed towards positive energy and expression. Outside of marriage, it can be dangerous to society and personal development as it is not directed in a positive way.

UmeAimon wrote:

Do you think all the researches conducted on the humans are on perfectly healthily brought-up individuals in perfect environment and conditions, by 100% honest and pious people and are 100% correct in order to make it a universal phenomenon? Are you that naïve or think most people who’ll buy this?


Sister, have you read any scientific paper on this and studied their research-methods and conclusions? Homo-sexuality is a global phenomena. Seen among almost 90% of all societies on earth. Every society deals with it differently, some surpress it, others attack it, others ignore it, others allow it, some encourage it (as for example the Maui people). In all situations, it occured. This to me, and to me many scientists, shows it is a natural occurence. Just as hermaphrodites are.

UmeAimon wrote:

Where do you find the words that say the Lut’s nation was aggressive/attacking the guests of Lut( which by the way he knew were Allah’s messengers)?


Their reaction towards him was agressive constantly.

26:167 They said, "O Lot! If you do not desist, you will be driven out of the town.”

15:70 They said, "Did we not forbid you from entertaining anyone?”

11:79 They said, "You know, we have little interest in our wives whom you call your daughters. You know well what we want.”


This is an attempt to get the guests and to rape them, which is clear from the text. Also the mentioning of not allowing anyone into the town is very revealing.

UmeAimon wrote:

Aqeela comes from aqm which mean a womb that cannot produce babies. Aqeela has been used for both males and females by Arabs symbolizing person who cannot make a child, willingly or unwillingly. There is no mention of their/humans want but how Allah designed humans neither was it understood that way ever.


Ayn-Qaf-Miim = to be barren (womb), become dry, be unproductive, be gloomy, distressing, grievous (day), be childless, destructive.

To the Arabs, any person not producing children could be labeled under A-Q-M. In some Hadith and old stories on Arab and Persian society, homosexuals were labeled as eunuchs as nobody knew how to label them since their place in osciety was unclear.

http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume5/00000401.pdf

http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume5/00000402.pdf

And it is also applied to a
man, meaning To whom no child is born; (.,
Msb, VWink and so 'trU: (1]Smile pl. 45i' and
;l. (M,b, 15) and .;c. (1)_ - [Hence,]
applied to a wind, t Such as doe not fecundate,
orfructify; (, TA;) that does not cause clouds
to produce rain, nor tre to prod~wefruit; ($Wink
i. e. that dos not bring rain, but is destructiv :

UmeAimon wrote:

Now besides what you WANT to assume for naturals of now a days, my question remains why Allah not talk about them during Lut’s story clearly so we could know what nisa are and also which one of the pair, male with female brain or male with male brain? Oh no but what excuse does the male with male brain has to be in that relation, he is not natural is he or Rijal should only be used as men now?


Natural homosexuality is more complex then just a 'female' brain in a man's body. That is only one reason out of a whole list, of what could make somebody a natural homosexual. There are many causing factors. Again, we could also ask why God doesn't mention hermaphrodites. These are more easier to explain. But not one verse mentions these.

Why doesn't God clearly say no sticks were turned into snakes in the Moses story? No, we have to deduce this by long research, cross-reference and relflection. Same accounts for many subjects.

I will post references to multiple uses of Azwaj later on. The core-meaning of Azwaj is to mingle with people. From this the concept of coupling was linked to the word, and developed into the concept of pairs.

As for Nisaa and RJL for example:

وآذن في الناس بالحج يأتوك رجالا 22:27

And proclaim unto mankind the Hajj. They will come unto thee on foot and on every lean camel; they will come from every deep ravine,

"People" includes men and women, and they become "rijaala"

ويستفتونك في النساء قل الله يفتيكم فيهن وما يتلى عليكم في الكتاب في يتامى النساء التي لا تؤتوهن ما كتب لهن وترغبون أن تنكحوهن والمستضعفين من الولدان وأن تقوموا لليتامى بالقسط وما تفعلوا من خير فإن الله كان به عليما 4:127

"They ask you about "nisaa'", say God will advise you about the mothers of orphans you want to marry without paying them their dues, and the vulnerable children and to be fair with orphans".

"nisaa'" includes all these categories: mothers of orphans; vulnerable children and the orphans themselves, which can be male or female.

There are more places where nisaa and rjl refer to both genders, and thus become not gender-labeling, but referring to their actions or social-position/potentials.
Back to top
UmeAimon



Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 141
Location: UAE

PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salam dear Arnold,

Sorry if you thought was being arrogant but so far I couldn't get any sound logic from you and was simply responding to that!

I saw the definations you gave for love and lust and we have a saying here in our culture,

a wise person needs is a small hint to understand Wink
In the end I just want to add as an elder sister, you need to learn a lot more about other cultures from other than reading about them!

I don't think we need to continue anymore!

jazakAllah


Ummeaimon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UmeAimon



Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 141
Location: UAE

PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salaaam all,

See the perspective in action here! Whatever mindframe one takes at the arguments effect the way he interprets it. That’s very natural. So my statement may seem like I got convinced and hence don’t need to continue anymore, to those who want to think this way…or perhaps it’s my English hehehe! But people who have been reading and thinking cannot find the reason!
So, worried friend, my post merely says I do not agree with Arnold because I did not find any logical explanations of his views, that is all. Hope it will be clearer now!

By the way, I must add does anyone know Arabic word for the pronoun “it”?Very Happy

jazakAllah

UmeAimon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Our Beacon Forum Index -> General Discussions and News All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group