Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

So gay people are now being targeted by Islamic extremists in their own countries? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Either you are not familiar with the Quran, or you are being deliberately dishonest.

    5:32 states that "if anyone kills a soul, other than as a punishment for murder or fasad, it is as if..."

    Fasad ("mischief" covers a wide range of offences, but includes "disobeying/rejecting god's law".

    The next verse (5:33), clearly states that the punishment for those 'waging war on Allah and his messenger', and for fasad, is death.

    So we can see that the Quran explicitly permits the killing of people who have transgressed against Islamic law. So any hadith that calls for the death of prople transgressing Islamic law is not contradicting the Quran.

    Hope this has helped.
    Hi,

    Sorry with the late response, been quite busy. As for the verse, i explained it more on depth on another post, you might be able to see it by clicking my profile or something- somewhat new to the student room so don't know how all the things work atm.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    The BBC has stated:


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-36510172

    Homophobia within the Muslim community is something that needs to be challenged.

    The fact is that there is room for acceptance of homosexuality within Islam. There is no verse within the Quran which explicitly condemns homosexuality. I think in light of this event (which sources appear to point towards Islamic extremism), more needs to be done within the Muslim community to tackle the issue of homophobia and serious discussions need to take place over Islamic interpretations in regards to sexuality.
    Really?
    Interesting. So then why is homosexuality frowned against by most Muslims and Islamic countries? Is it down to interpretation or something...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Either you are not familiar with the Quran, or you are being deliberately dishonest.

    5:32 states that "if anyone kills a soul, other than as a punishment for murder or fasad, it is as if..."

    Fasad ("mischief" covers a wide range of offences, but includes "disobeying/rejecting god's law".

    The next verse (5:33), clearly states that the punishment for those 'waging war on Allah and his messenger', and for fasad, is death.

    So we can see that the Quran explicitly permits the killing of people who have transgressed against Islamic law. So any hadith that calls for the death of prople transgressing Islamic law is not contradicting the Quran.

    Hope this has helped.
    In case you didnt find the explanation i will try to briefly explain this. Yes you are correct that fasad means mischief but one of the beauties of the Qur'an is the in depth meaning of several words- Surah al fatiah is a prime example (search nourman ali khan surah fatiha tafsir). Anyway, so this word can be interpreted in many ways and at the time, the people had to prophet to explain and unfortuantely we do not so in order t understand the verses we need to look at scholars and the context and time line it was reveled- the quran was not revealed in one surah at a time but verses at a time and god knows the order of which the verses came in. Within the quran there are a few hints as to what fasad refers to: personally for me ( and majority of people ) believe that fasad is terrorism, and guess what, one of the punishments of terrorism is in fact the death penalty.

    And do not sit on every path, threatening and averting (my assumption is by force or deceit) from the way of Allah those who believe in Him, seeking to make it [seem] deviant. And remember when you were few and He increased you. And see how was the end of the mufsideen (corrupters).

    And We took the Children of Israel across the sea, and Pharaoh and his soldiers pursued them in tyranny and enmity until, when drowning overtook him, he said, "I believe that there is no deity except that in whom the Children of Israel believe, and I am of the Muslims." (90) Now? And you had disobeyed [Him] before and were of the corrupters? (91)

    As we all know, pharaoh was one of the greatest terrorist who oppressed his people and caused mass genocide. So to conclude, that verse itself show us that terrorism is not allowed in Islam and that this act (what ths original post/ thread starter was on about) is despised in Islam (that it is worthy of death sentence).

    [Edit]

    Islamic teachings describe the act of giving life (ijad) andtaking it away (i’dam) as exclusively God’s prerogative.Thus, the terms ijad and i’dam denote actions by Godthat human beings are not allowed to emulate.
    Because of that, We decreed upon the Children ofIsrael that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or forcorruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slainmankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as ifhe had saved mankind entirely. (Quran 5:32)

    The geographical and cultural landscape of seventhcentury Arabia in which the Quran and the religion ofIslam emerged was a very violent and hostile one markedby endless tribal blood feuds. Indeed one of the ‘noble’traits greatly valued in pre-Islamic society was that ofhamasa (steadfastness in seeking revenge).Thus, within such a violent and lawless context, theQuran permitted the taking of a life only ‘by way of justiceand law’ as a measure for preventing cycles of violence.With the emergence of the new religion of Islam, lifecould only be taken if it had been explicitly sanctionedand specified under Sharia and not merely as part ofblood feuds.Take not life, which God has made sacred, except byway of justice and law. Thus does He command you,so that you may learn wisdom. (Quran 6:151)In most Muslim countries, therefore, the death penaltycan be applied by courts as punishment for the ‘mostserious crimes’ as set out in Sharia law.

    As for today's society, there are no blood feuds, hence killings should not be committed.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cherry82)
    Really?
    Interesting. So then why is homosexuality frowned against by most Muslims and Islamic countries? Is it down to interpretation or something...
    The concept of homosexuality is a rather recent introduction into the Arab Islamic world. They never really had a concept for homosexuality. However, in the Islamic world they did have practices that we in might refer to as homosexual. It was for example quite common for men to express their love for handsome young adolescent boys. Early Islamic poetry is full of such homoerotic themes. A classic example, and considered one of the greatest classical poets of the Arabic language is Abu Nuwas who wrote many poems that are full with homoerotic themes. However, this pederastic homosexuality seems to have died our during European colonialism. Khaled El-Rouayheb says in his book "Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800":

    Between the middle of the nineteenth century and the early decades of the twentieth, the prevalent tolerance of the passionate love of boys was eroded, presumably owing - at least in part - to the adoption of European Victorian attitudes by the new, modern educated and westernised elite
    In this post of mine I show more examples of this pederastic homosexual culture in the Arab Islamic world:
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...5#post64769695

    So whilst I would say the interpretations play a role in homophobia within Islamic communities, I think the culture plays a role in driving the interpretations, and the cultural intolerance towards homosexuality has largely been influenced by Victorian Western values during the colonial era that were adopted by the Islamic world.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stormz1)
    Hi,

    Sorry with the late response, been quite busy. As for the verse, i explained it more on depth on another post, you might be able to see it by clicking my profile or something- somewhat new to the student room so don't know how all the things work atm.
    Your post included nothing that refuted the clear explanation contained in Ibn Kathir's tafsir of that verse. Neither did it address the point I made, that Islam allows the killing of those who disobey Allah's law (under certain conditions).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stormz1)
    As we all know, pharaoh was one of the greatest terrorist who oppressed his people and caused mass genocide.
    Rubbish!
    There were many pharaohes, and just like all leaders, they varied in their behaviour.

    Could you cite some evidence from authentic Egyptologists that "pharaoh" was "the greatest terrorist, etc"

    So to conclude, that verse itself show us that terrorism is not allowed in Islam and that this act (what ths original post/ thread starter was on about) is despised in Islam (that it is worthy of death sentence).
    The issue isn't "terrorism". It is whether the Quran and sunnah permits the killing of those who oppose and disobey god's law.
    It does, BTW. As I demonstrated with evidence from the Quran, sunnah and authoritative tafsir.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cherry82)
    Really?
    Interesting. So then why is homosexuality frowned against by most Muslims and Islamic countries? Is it down to interpretation or something...
    Muslims read the story of prophet Lut in the Qur'an but misinterpret its meaning the sin is homosexuality.

    The sin that Lut describes in his tribe is "coming unto males with desire in place of women" which means using males sexually in the passive role. But the meaning of the word "male" has changed over the centuries. In the ancient world, to be "male" meant to have not only the physical organs but the innate aptitude to use them in procreative acts. Those who had male genitals but who by nature were not aroused by women, such as gay men, were excluded from the "male" category and instead were called eunuchs. The idea of sex with women left them cold and left their penises flaccid, and they were considered safe around women and freed from any temptation to commit adultery with women.

    So how did things change? Why do we now define maleness by genitalia alone and define eunuchs as castrated men?

    As men who lacked desire for or potency with women, eunuchs have always held very powerful positions in government and in religious organisations, providing a kind of aura around the king and his family, and a buffer between the king and his subjects who might want to take the throne. And there were many who resented this protection around the king, the influence that eunuchs were able to have with the king and his family, and the control that they could exert over the succession to the throne by the fact that they staffed the palace. Those who harboured this resentment against royal palace eunuchs came up with a strategy to strip the eunuchs of their power and status, and leave the king exposed to more "democratic" influence. The strategy that has been pursued over the centuries is to redefine the concepts of eunuch and male, so that those who are "eunuchs by nature" or "born eunuchs" would be removed from the eunuch category and thrown in with males. Gender would no longer be defined primarily as a role in procreation, but rather as a physical shape of the body. How that helped the strategy of stripping palace eunuchs of their power, is that old taboos against males in the passive role which were never applicable to eunuchs (since they were not considered male), suddenly became applicable to eunuchs (who were now redefined as male). That meant that the sexual practices of these men were now suddenly criminalised, even though the laws had never been intended to target the sexuality of men who lacked arousal with women.

    The crime of the people of Lut was that they were transgressing the taboo against sexual penetration of men who are "male", men who by nature felt the arousal with women that defined virility and masculinity. They did this in order to show dominance and for sexual gratification, just as stronger bullies sexually dominate weaker men in prison. It is that type of behavior that the people of Lut were notorious for committing.And the people of Lut who were doing this were not some subset of men of the town, not some sort of "gay" minority. They were ALL of the men of the town. That may seem strange to gay people today, who grow up believing that most people have no desires for the same sex at all. We only grow up believing that because there is such a strong taboo on same-sex activity in the modern world. No one wants to admit any same-sex feelings for fear of becoming labelled as gay or bisexual. But in the ancient world, this blanket taboo on same-sex activity did not exist and therefore no one would have denied having same-sex feelings nor would anyone have been surprised that anyone else felt them. It was totally normal. But there was this taboo against sexually penetrating a "male" or letting yourself be penetrated if you were a "male". Such behavior if habitual would turn the passive "male" into a social eunuch. It would e-masculate him. And that behavior of turning males into eunuchs, emasculating them, was originally the crime of the people of Lut.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)

    It is whether the Quran and sunnah permits the killing of those who oppose and disobey god's law.
    It does, BTW. As I demonstrated with evidence from the Quran, sunnah and authoritative tafsir.
    What you've demonstrated are methods very much in accordance with neo-ahl ḥadīth approach to interpre-tation (manhāj)󰀷 of the Qurʾān and Sunna as advocated by major contempo-rary Saudi Arabian scholars such as N. Al-Albanī (d. 1999), A. Bin Bāz (d. 1999), M. Al-Uthaymīn (d. 2001) , al-Fawzān (b. 1933), Al-Munājjid (b. 1960), Ibn Jibrīn (d. 2014) and H.R. Al-Madhkhalī (b. 1931)󰀸 and their students or associates. These are puritanical Salafist-Wahabists and do NOT represent all Muslims in the Islamic world. ISIS also follow the very same methodology as neo-ahl ḥadīth.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jhansen23)
    What you've demonstrated are methods very much in accordance with neo-ahl ḥadīth approach to interpre-tation (manhāj)󰀷 of the Qurʾān and Sunna as advocated by major contempo-rary Saudi Arabian scholars such as N. Al-Albanī (d. 1999), A. Bin Bāz (d. 1999), M. Al-Uthaymīn (d. 2001) , al-Fawzān (b. 1933), Al-Munājjid (b. 1960), Ibn Jibrīn (d. 2014) and H.R. Al-Madhkhalī (b. 1931)󰀸 and their students or associates. These are puritanical Salafist-Wahabists and do NOT represent all Muslims in the Islamic world. ISIS also follow the very same methodology as neo-ahl ḥadīth.
    Nope. I used only Ibn Kathir's tafsir, verbatim. I added no other interpretations or opinions.

    Bear in mind that Ibn Kathir's tafsir is 700 years old, and is the most widely used and most authoritative tafsir in the world.

    It is possible that the scholars that you cite used Ibn Kathir as their source material.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    The concept of homosexuality is a rather recent introduction into the Arab Islamic world. They never really had a concept for homosexuality. However, in the Islamic world they did have practices that we in might refer to as homosexual. It was for example quite common for men to express their love for handsome young adolescent boys. Early Islamic poetry is full of such homoerotic themes. A classic example, and considered one of the greatest classical poets of the Arabic language is Abu Nuwas who wrote many poems that are full with homoerotic themes. However, this pederastic homosexuality seems to have died our during European colonialism. Khaled El-Rouayheb says in his book "Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800":
    Wow, thanks for explaining this.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jhansen23)
    Muslims read the story of prophet Lut in the Qur'an but misinterpret its meaning the sin is homosexuality.

    The sin that Lut describes in his tribe is "coming unto males with desire in place of women" which means using males sexually in the passive role. But the meaning of the word "male" has changed over the centuries. In the ancient world, to be "male" meant to have not only the physical organs but the innate aptitude to use them in procreative acts. Those who had male genitals but who by nature were not aroused by women, such as gay men, were excluded from the "male" category and instead were called eunuchs. The idea of sex with women left them cold and left their penises flaccid, and they were considered safe around women and freed from any temptation to commit adultery with women.

    So how did things change? Why do we now define maleness by genitalia alone and define eunuchs as castrated men?

    As men who lacked desire for or potency with women, eunuchs have always held very powerful positions in government and in religious organisations, providing a kind of aura around the king and his family, and a buffer between the king and his subjects who might want to take the throne. And there were many who resented this protection around the king, the influence that eunuchs were able to have with the king and his family, and the control that they could exert over the succession to the throne by the fact that they staffed the palace. Those who harboured this resentment against royal palace eunuchs came up with a strategy to strip the eunuchs of their power and status, and leave the king exposed to more "democratic" influence. The strategy that has been pursued over the centuries is to redefine the concepts of eunuch and male, so that those who are "eunuchs by nature" or "born eunuchs" would be removed from the eunuch category and thrown in with males. Gender would no longer be defined primarily as a role in procreation, but rather as a physical shape of the body. How that helped the strategy of stripping palace eunuchs of their power, is that old taboos against males in the passive role which were never applicable to eunuchs (since they were not considered male), suddenly became applicable to eunuchs (who were now redefined as male). That meant that the sexual practices of these men were now suddenly criminalised, even though the laws had never been intended to target the sexuality of men who lacked arousal with women.

    The crime of the people of Lut was that they were transgressing the taboo against sexual penetration of men who are "male", men who by nature felt the arousal with women that defined virility and masculinity. They did this in order to show dominance and for sexual gratification, just as stronger bullies sexually dominate weaker men in prison. It is that type of behavior that the people of Lut were notorious for committing.And the people of Lut who were doing this were not some subset of men of the town, not some sort of "gay" minority. They were ALL of the men of the town. That may seem strange to gay people today, who grow up believing that most people have no desires for the same sex at all. We only grow up believing that because there is such a strong taboo on same-sex activity in the modern world. No one wants to admit any same-sex feelings for fear of becoming labelled as gay or bisexual. But in the ancient world, this blanket taboo on same-sex activity did not exist and therefore no one would have denied having same-sex feelings nor would anyone have been surprised that anyone else felt them. It was totally normal. But there was this taboo against sexually penetrating a "male" or letting yourself be penetrated if you were a "male". Such behavior if habitual would turn the passive "male" into a social eunuch. It would e-masculate him. And that behavior of turning males into eunuchs, emasculating them, was originally the crime of the people of Lut.
    This was very informative and eye opening. Thank you for taking the time out to respond. Yea, I was just about to respond doesn't eunuch mean a castrated, religious male but read on and thought I see.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.