Islam and Hsexuality

[Allyourbase]

<cite>

@DoctorKenney

said:</cite>

BTW AllYourBase don't expect us to forget a couple of months ago when you were asked to elaborate on your world-view, which could then be analysed on whether it's credible or not, and whether it can be used as a benchmark to judge past and present societies. And whether this world-view is philosophically consistent, and can provide objective (and universal) moral values.

 

You couldn't answer it. You disappeared from the Forum. Because you don't know what you're doing

 

You're an Amateur. And until you're able to fulfil that task than I'm not obligated to answer anything you ask me. You're like a man who wears a mask and then calls others ugly

 

You are just plain trolling now.

[DoctorKenney]

LOL, The same arguments, simply rehashed and written in a different style

 

End it. You're not logical, and judging by these posts, you don't have a shred of self-respect either

[Khayr]

Offbase,

 

How does اطهٓرُ لٓكًُمً which is a positive phrase (based on purity - they are purer) translate into an offering of one's daughters to be raped (an negative term)?

 

The مُفٓسِرون have said that that ayat 11:78 was Nabi Lut عليه السلام telling his people to stay away from the lusting of the men at his house and take his daughters instead in marriage.

 

 

[xabad]

in the Judeo-christian tradition Lot did indeed offer up his daughters for sex to the crowd in place of his male guests. its a controversial subject which apologists haven't been able to wriggle their way out of. And this DrKenney is out of his depth as usual, he really is making up stuff on the fly. give it up dude.

[DoctorKenney]

<cite>

@xabad

said:</cite>

in the Judeo-christian tradition Lot did indeed offer up his daughters for sex to the crowd in place of his male guests. its a controversial subject which apologists haven't been able to wriggle their way out of. And this DrKenney is out of his depth as usual, he really is making up stuff on the fly. give it up dude.

 

Xabad, abaayo....please don't concern yourself with arguments you know nothing about. Open up a book and stop involving yourself with things that are well beyond your brain capacity.

 

The Judeo-Christian Tradition is corrupt, has nothing to do with this topic, and I don't care to discuss it.

 

We're talking about Islam here.

 

This is my last address to you xabad. So any response you make thereafter will only get a little chuckle from me, and nothing more

[Allyourbase]

<cite>

@DoctorKenney

said:</cite>

 

 

The Judeo-Christian Tradition is corrupt, has nothing to do with this topic, and I don't care to discuss it.

 

We're talking about Islam here.

 

 

Ah, look at the poor Dr panic

 

So basically we have supporting material from the source of the story itself? (We know Mohamed 'borrowed' much of the stories in the Quran from tales in the Torah and Bible)

 

PLUS, the Quran itself being very clear with what was on offer here.

 

Dearest Xabad, could you provide some references to these Jewish/Christian sources?

 

That would be a trifecta of original source evidence to the dear prophet's 'offer'

[Khayr]

<cite>

@Khayr

said:</cite>

Offbase,

 

How does اطهٓرُ لٓكًُمً which is a positive phrase (based on purity - they are purer) translate into an offering of one's daughters to be raped (an negative term)?

 

The مُفٓسِرون have said that that ayat 11:78 was Nabi Lut عليه السلام telling his people to stay away from the lusting of the men at his house and take his daughters instead in marriage.

 

Offbase, you haven't answered my question.

 

The bible is not up for discussion here.

You quoted ayats of quran and came to

conclusions that are only supported by

islamaphobes like yourself.

 

Tallabo, you haven't answered my question yet.

 

[Hasina]

When Prophet Lut (AS) offered his daughters, he wasn't referring to his biological daughters as stated by the scholars. He was referring to the women of Sodom, because he was their father too, symbolically. Similar to how, the Prophet Muhammad's wives' (SAW) are the Mothers of the Believers. Why would he say they are purer for you if he was offering them for fornication? He directed the men to what was purer for them and for the society as whole and what is purer than marriage between a man and a woman? However these men were intoxicated by their lust - and it's clear that they weren't interested in purity because they only sought to fulfill their perverted sexual desires.

 

The Bible's account of Lot's story is disgusting and incorrect. It's in the Bible they say Lot offered his two daughters to the men and said they can do anything to them as long as they leave his guests alone. The Bible also includes other sordid details of Lot's daughters sleeping with their own father. Nauudibillah.

[xabad]

<cite>

@Hasina

said:</cite>

When Prophet Lut (AS) offered his daughters, he wasn't referring to his biological daughters as stated by the scholars. He was referring to the women of Sodom, because he was their father too, symbolically.

Similar to how, the Prophet Muhammad's wives' (SAW) are the Mothers of the Believers. Why would he say they are purer for you if he was offering them for fornication? He directed the men to what was purer for them and for the society as whole and what is purer than marriage between a man and a woman? However these men were intoxicated by their lust - and it's clear that they weren't interested in purity because they only sought to fulfill their perverted sexual desires.

 

The Bible's account of Lot's story is disgusting and incorrect. It's in the Bible they say Lot offered his two daughters to the men and said they can do anything to them as long as they leave his guests alone. The Bible also includes other sordid details of Lot's daughters sleeping with their own father. Nauudibillah.

 

your wrong, its a dishonest re-interpretation your picking as an escape.

the facts are clear in the Qur'an, lot/lut offered his own daughters( not the women of the wider community as you conveniently put it) for sex, not marriage which is never mentioned in these verses.

 

[Allyourbase]

<cite>

@Hasina

said:</cite>

When Prophet Lut (AS) offered his daughters, he wasn't referring to his biological daughters as stated by the scholars.

He was referring to the women of Sodom, because he was their father too, symbolically

. Similar to how, the Prophet Muhammad's wives' (SAW) are the Mothers of the Believers. Why would he say they are purer for you if he was offering them for fornication? He directed the men to what was purer for them and for the society as whole and what is purer than marriage between a man and a woman? However these men were intoxicated by their lust - and it's clear that they weren't interested in purity because they only sought to fulfill their perverted sexual desires.

 

The Bible's account of Lot's story is disgusting and incorrect. It's in the Bible they say Lot offered his two daughters to the men and said they can do anything to them as long as they leave his guests alone. The Bible also includes other sordid details of Lot's daughters sleeping with their own father. Nauudibillah.

 

Oh, you guys have gone full on zombie mode here. This is such a bizarre attempt at normalising those (very clear) verses from the Quran. How can you argue that he was their father symbolically WHEN THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN HIM TO BEGIN WITH? :D

 

Its actually funny how one of you would go on to claim that the dear prophet somehow meant to marry his daughters to these homosexuals/rapists whilst the other would come out of the blue to claim this 'symbolic' fatherly connection.

 

I actually looked up the Biblical reference and it is shocking in its similarity to the Quranic verse:

 

Genesis 19:4-9

King James Version (KJV)

4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

 

5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

 

6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

 

7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

 

8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

 

9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

 

 

====

 

 

Now compare this to the Quranic verses:

 

 

 

And the people of the city came rejoicing.

 

 

[Lot] said, "Indeed, these are my guests, so do not shame me.

 

 

And fear Allah and do not disgrace me."

 

 

They said, "Have we not forbidden you from people?"

 

 

[Lot] said, "These are my daughters - if you would be doers."

 

:o

 

I hope this clarifies the dear prophet's proposal, I mean its identical even in the use of the 'doing' plea!!

 

I rest my case

[Tallaabo]

I tend to agree with Allyourbase regarding this story about prophet Lut's daughters. Indeed the prophet was so desperate to protect his guests from an imminent molestation and humiliation in the hands of his extremely evil people that he was ready to offer his own daughters instead as a sacrifice. The "daughters" mentioned in this story cannot be the women of Lut's society because the evil men were not interested in them as the Quran says. So Lut was prepared to offer his own daughters in order to save his guests. Also, no marriage is mentioned in these verses so the prophet was probably not offering his daughters for marriage. The verses say that "the people of the city"- which means a lot of men. Logic dictates that the prophet had fewer daughters than could be married to a whole town. So from this we can deduce that prophet Lut did not have marriage in his mind when offering his daughters. The Bible also has the same story and there is no mention of marriage or town girls in it. Although both the old testament and the new testament have a great number of errors in them, they are nevertheless invaluable historical documents and are frequently used by the Quran commentators to give a more comprehensive view of the many stories that Quran and the Bible share. This sad scenario of the prophet of Allah being in such a great distress with no options but to sacrifice his daughters strengths the view that Lut's story is not about homosexual sex between two consenting males but rather is about the molestation of innocent people, gay sex between straight men, and a host of other crimes.

[Tallaabo]

<cite>

@Khayr

said:</cite>

Tallabo,

 

I am curious as to how you came to that conclusion.

Natural homosexuals?

Can we use the same term and say

Natural Murderers?

Do you accept both because they are Natural?

That is an absurd question.

[Khayr]

<cite>

@Tallaabo

said:</cite>

 

This sad scenario of the prophet of Allah being in such a great distress with no options but to sacrifice his daughters strengths the view that Lut's story is not about homosexual sex between

two consenting males

but rather is about the molestation of innocent people, gay sex between straight men, and a host of other crimes.

 

Two consenting males? So who is the consenter and the consented?

 

How did you come up with such a vastly different interpretation of the story of Nabi Lut عليه السلام ?

 

 

[Khayr]

<cite>

@Tallaabo

said:</cite>

That is an absurd question.

 

You made a strong statement that implies acceptance

of something that the deen is explicit about.

 

Offbase,

 

Surely, the worst of noises is that of the donkey!

 

[Allyourbase]

<cite>

@Tallaabo

said:</cite>

I tend to agree with Allyourbase regarding this story about prophet Lut's daughters. Indeed the prophet was so desperate to protect his guests from an imminent molestation and humiliation in the hands of his extremely evil people that he was ready to offer his own daughters instead as a sacrifice. The "daughters" mentioned in this story cannot be the women of Lut's society because the evil men were not interested in them as the Quran says. So Lut was prepared to offer his own daughters in order to save his guests. Also, no marriage is mentioned in these verses so the prophet was probably not offering his daughters for marriage. The verses say that "

the people of the city

"- which means a lot of men. Logic dictates that the prophet had fewer daughters than could be married to a whole town. So from this we can get an deduce that prophet Lut did not have marriage in his mind when offering his daughters. The Bible also has the same story and there is no mention of marriage or town girls in it. Although both the old testament and the new testament have a great number of errors in them, they are nevertheless invaluable historical documents and are frequently used by the Quran commentators to give a more comprehensive view of the many stories that Quran and the Bible share. This sad scenario of the prophet of Allah being in such a great distress with no options but to sacrifice his daughters strengths the view that Lut's story is not about homosexual sex between two consenting males but rather is about the molestation of innocent people, gay sex between straight men, and a host of other crimes.

 

What the Quranic verses were stating is very clear actually, but the deceitful intentions of those apologist Wahabis come to light when you compare the original Arabic verse to its English translation where they inserted the phrase 'lawful marriage' to completely and utterly change the meaning of that particular verse. This is one of many and that is why I always encourage those interested to read the Quran to try and read the original source, with no middlemen as such, when you do that you can clearly see the human origins of the text. And I know this may be something you do not completely agree with Tallaabo, but hey, at least we can agree on the case of prophet Lot