Turn on thread page Beta

I am a muslim...I'm gay..What can i do :( watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    OP, Islam is the only religion that will lead you to paradise, no question about it! You look at all the current signs and situations of difficulty the muslims are under in Palestine and various other countries, this is a test from Allah, everything you go through in life is a test. I would recommend, ditch your sexuality, for Allah's pleasure. Ultimately this life is a delusion compared to the hereafter. No doubt about it, those who follow Allah and his Prophet Muhammad(PBUH), will prosper on the Day of Judgement. This will be the messaged relayed by Jesus on his second coming to whose who claimed divinity as son of God, ie Christians.

    On his return he will destroy the jews in Israel and serve justice. Just as Israel stole someone else lands and then throwed them out.

    I would rather live a life of unhappiness on earth, because it's temporary. Islam is the truth, no doubt it. Just look at the life of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) 63 years and all the miracles before him.

    This is why the society has so many problems nowadays, (Including muslims) because they do not follow the teachings of prophet muhammed (PBUH) ie, tell the truth, no man should talk to a women because shaytan is the third party are so true.

    Homosexuality is forbidden in Islam in all circumstances, there was a story in the Hadiths (Books) what happened to those who chose homosexuality when it was clearly forbidden.

    Op, read the quran and Hadiths, look for help from the scholars, this path is the right one, Good luck to you, sorry for the rambling.

    I apologise if I have offended anyone, but thats the truth from my heart.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MartialLaw)
    Please keep your SH*T TO YOURSELF !

    Bro, just because someone is gay or not they start believing god isnt real? we breathe oxygen and can't see it with our naked eyes im sure 1400 years ago they was contemplating things like this. If your gay and want to carry on being gay, dont call yourself muslim. If you want to be muslim, then go see an imam, im sure if your really muslim 100 years or so of life is nothing compared to the hereafter.

    The person i quoted... :rant: and keep your :toilet: to yourself.
    just what? your post doesn't make any sense.

    this isn't anything to do with the god (beyond the question you have to ask yourself - why would god create you gay then command you not to be so?) but religion. you don't have to be muslim to believe in a god - if you want to go find a religion that accepts homosexuality, go for it, althought that's just a touch cynical. as for the oxygen bit - what? I really hope that's not as stupid as I think it is.

    as for the rest - try reading my post before ranting about it! It's not as simple as simply saying "i'm not a muslim", as you would realise had you read my post, the op's post, or any other of the muslims' posts here.

    try and rant coherently next time?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mozzy1411)

    This is due to the ineluctable attraction, and temptation.

    No thats due to many muslim men culturally viewing women as sex objects that are to be owned and dominated and being unable to demonstrate self control over themselves.

    (this isnt a judgement on all muslims, especially more and more those in the west, it is a judgement on what I believe to be an outdated cultural trend from the middle east)

    (Original post by QE5)
    OP, Islam is the only religion that will lead you to paradise, no question about it!
    Yeah, I also think most people are willing to bet on 1 out of thousands of religions when only a minority of the world population believe in it.

    The chances of Islam being the 'right' religion arent actaully that great when compared against the thousands of other religions over the thousands of years of human existence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mozzy1411)
    If the Ibn Warraq is the same one that I know, then he is not a native Arab. He is of Pakistani origin...
    Thank you for your reply. My apologies for my evident failure to check that Mr. Warraq was an Arab! However, I do not agree that having had some non-Muslim teachers (what did they do, corrupt his pure mind?) and perhaps, though not definitely, not being a native Arabic speaker proves that the entirety of his analysis is wrong. The writings to which I have referred are actually from that book, "Why I am not a Muslim", in an extract entitled "The Koran": "After Muhammad's death in A.D. 632, there was no collection of his revelations....soon we had the codices of several scholars such as Ibn Mas'ud, Ubai b. Kab, Ali', Abu Bakr, al-Ash'ari, al-Aswad, and others...Uthman tried to bring order to this chaotic situation by canonizing the Medinan codex...with orders to destroy all the other codices. Uthman's codex was supposed to standardize the consonantal text; yet we find that many of the variant traditions of this consonantal text survived well into the fourth Islamic century... After having settled the consonants, Muslims still had to decide what vowels to employ: using different vowels, of course, rendered different readings. ... Eventually under the influence of the great Koranic scholar Ibn Mujahid (d. A.D. 935), there was a definite canonization of one system of consonants and a limit placed on the variations of vowels used in the text that resulted in acceptance of the systems of the seven:
    1. Nafi of Medina (d. A.d.785)
    2. Ibn Kathir of Mecca (737)
    3. Ibn Amir of Damascus (736)
    4. Abu Amr of Basra (770)
    5. Asim of Kufa (744)
    6. Hamza of Kufa (772)
    7. Al-Kisai of Kufa (804).

    But other scholas accepted ten readings, and still others accepted fourteen readings. even Ibn Mujahid's seven provided fourteen possibilites, since each of the seven was traced through two different transmitters:
    1. (Nafi of Medina according to) Warsh and Qalun
    2. (... acccording to) al-Bazzi and Qunbul
    3. Hisham and Ibn Dhakwan
    4. al-Duri and al-Susi
    5. Hafs and Abu Bakr
    6. Khalaf and Khallad
    7.al-Duri and Abul Harith"

    Further, his textual criticisms draw on work by Arabic scholars (e.g. Ali Dashti) and, more importantly, are backed up by definite examples, e.g. "In verse 162 of Sura 4, which begins "But those among them who are well-grounded in knowledge, the believers...and the performers of the prayer, and the payers of the alms-tax," the word for performers is in the accusative case; whereas it ought to be in the nomnative case, like the words for "well-grounded" etc. In verse 9 of sura 49...the verb meaning "have started to fight" is in the plural, hwereas it ought to be in the dual like its subject "two parties"". Criticise the evidence, not the people.

    Also, I don't understand - why would being a layman, i.e. someone without much expertise, make him better? Where is the evidence that his knowledge of Islam is weak? As for the nationalistic and ridiculous idea that living in another country automatically excludes you from expertise in an area, what would you say, for example, of the historiography of Soviet Russia? There, as in Islam, it was impossible to criticise the orthadoxy without punishment, so all histories of Soviet Russia, as all histories of Islam, were pro-the system. Only histories in other countries stood any chance of nearing impartiality. Considering that you yourself said that apostasy is the highest sin in Islam, and considering it is punishable by death in, for example, Iran, I would argue that *only* a foreigner or non-Muslim could stand any chance of impartial treatment of the text.

    No one said He merely speaks Arabic. He is the creator of everything and with him as the knowledge of all things. He is The All-Knower.
    You misunderstand me. I don't care how many languages he can speak (and please, again, stop with the meangingless tosh like "He is the All-Knower" - it really dilutes what was a good post). The point is this: Islam is the final revelation, and the Koran the key to salvation. However, until recently it was not even allowed to translate the Koran, and many claim that its beauty is only understandable in Arabic. Seen as the overwhelming majority of the world, including a large portion of Muslims, do not speak Arabic, how can the religion claim to be universal? If allah wanted all to be under his religion, why restrict access like that? Why not prove that he IS all powerful by dictating the same holy book to different prophets in every country in the world, so later it could be verified by translators, and so all could access Islam?

    Also, "his prophet was from the Arabian Peninsula, so surely it would make sense to explain things in Arabic" is just retarded. I was under the impression that God chose Muhammad, i.e. he could have chosen anyone else? Why not dictate to the Chinese, still the most powerful nation on earth? Or to the Spanish or English, who were later to dominate? I do not understand what you mean by the bit about washing and wiping.

    Really? I personally would prefer it if I were a non-Muslim, to have my sisters, mother, aunts, daughter to be protected by the state from lecherous men rather than them being allowed to go out exposing what is theirs in front of men who will inevitably be attracted to it. It is like putting a fat sheep amidst a pack of hungry wolves.
    I think that that is a sick, possesive view. I would prefer that the women chose what they want to do - if they do not want "lecherous men" looking at them (for as we all know, people looking at you is toxic), they can dress 'modestly'; if not, they can do what they want. Why do you seem to desire totalitarianism? The state 'protecting' us from ourselves? Enforced modesty? Have you *read* of any of the 20th century dictatorships?

    inevitably be attracted to it. It is like putting a fat sheep amidst a pack of hungry wolves.
    I'm sorry but this, like your claim that a boy and a girl cannot be together alone because attraction is inevitable is very simply not true, and if you had had any experience of being in the presence of non-family girls you would know that. Some of my very best friends are girls and I am not even slightly attracted to them - I would far sooner spend time alone with them than with a sexually-repressed Muslim. The vast majority of men are not "wolves" and are not attracted to anything that moves - you are attracted to a small proportion of the girls you meet, and fancy even fewer. You are aware that girls are interested in men too, right?

    Do those who do not believe that your personal god's rules are divine have to live under them too? Do you believe that countries in which people are killed for being gay, yet women are punished for being raped, are setting the moral example we should be following? There is an issue on crime rates - we do not even know what the crime rates are in Iran and Saudi Arabia, living as they do under effective dictatorships. Since when is South Africa held in high esteem? If you know a single girl who would rather waddle around bathed in black cloth, denied sunlight, freedom of dress and peripheral vision so the state can 'protect' her - and I mean a thinking girl, not one simply doing it to get into an afterlife - then I would love to meet her. Do you yourself think that dressing women up in burquas would stop rape in South Africa? Do you believe that all men are actually secretly repressing an instinct to rape, and that in decadent Western countries they go outside, see a bit of flesh and go "actually, I cannot resist. I must rape this girl now"? If you do, it says more about yourself than us. Freedom is far more precious than this kind of paranoia.

    Praise is due to the humans who have gotten us where we are. God builds no houses.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mozzy1411)
    There is a saying of the Prophet Muhammad in which he states: "This world is a paradise for the non-believer, and a prison for the believer".

    This doesn't mean Muslims have no fun or anything. Rather it means that non-believers live for this world
    , and everything in it. Wishing for short term happiness, like getting high on drugs or drinking alcohol by some. But, inevitable you will crash back down to reality and the problem is still there. In contrast to this the believer lives for the next, eternal life in which he will have that which he desires. This life is a test, just a short time. Be patient and you will find out what happiness really is. No hardship can overcome another hardship, rather it is followed by ease.

    It comes down to whether you wish to have a reward in this life and pay for it in the next, where the punishment is really unbearable. Or if you wish to have a reward from your Lord Most High, with gardens, underneath them rivers. Palaces of gold and silver, rivers of milk, honey and wine. The last person to get into Paradise will have ten times the like of this world and everything in it. By the way don't think this world refers to earth. Rather it is the universe, and everything in it. Imagine. Forever. Never ending.
    My bold, that only applies to three certain unbelievers, not those who don't believe in Islam.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by niall c)
    Thank you for your reply. My apologies for my evident failure to check that Mr. Warraq was an Arab! However, I do not agree that having had some non-Muslim teachers (what did they do, corrupt his pure mind?) and perhaps, though not definitely, not being a native Arabic speaker proves that the entirety of his analysis is wrong. The writings to which I have referred are actually from that book, "Why I am not a Muslim", in an extract entitled "The Koran": "After Muhammad's death in A.D. 632, there was no collection of his revelations....soon we had the codices of several scholars such as Ibn Mas'ud, Ubai b. Kab, Ali', Abu Bakr, al-Ash'ari, al-Aswad, and others...Uthman tried to bring order to this chaotic situation by canonizing the Medinan codex...with orders to destroy all the other codices. Uthman's codex was supposed to standardize the consonantal text; yet we find that many of the variant traditions of this consonantal text survived well into the fourth Islamic century... After having settled the consonants, Muslims still had to decide what vowels to employ: using different vowels, of course, rendered different readings. ... Eventually under the influence of the great Koranic scholar Ibn Mujahid (d. A.D. 935), there was a definite canonization of one system of consonants and a limit placed on the variations of vowels used in the text that resulted in acceptance of the systems of the seven:
    1. Nafi of Medina (d. A.d.785)
    2. Ibn Kathir of Mecca (737)
    3. Ibn Amir of Damascus (736)
    4. Abu Amr of Basra (770)
    5. Asim of Kufa (744)
    6. Hamza of Kufa (772)
    7. Al-Kisai of Kufa (804).

    But other scholas accepted ten readings, and still others accepted fourteen readings. even Ibn Mujahid's seven provided fourteen possibilites, since each of the seven was traced through two different transmitters:
    1. (Nafi of Medina according to) Warsh and Qalun
    2. (... acccording to) al-Bazzi and Qunbul
    3. Hisham and Ibn Dhakwan
    4. al-Duri and al-Susi
    5. Hafs and Abu Bakr
    6. Khalaf and Khallad
    7.al-Duri and Abul Harith"

    Further, his textual criticisms draw on work by Arabic scholars (e.g. Ali Dashti) and, more importantly, are backed up by definite examples, e.g. "In verse 162 of Sura 4, which begins "But those among them who are well-grounded in knowledge, the believers...and the performers of the prayer, and the payers of the alms-tax," the word for performers is in the accusative case; whereas it ought to be in the nomnative case, like the words for "well-grounded" etc. In verse 9 of sura 49...the verb meaning "have started to fight" is in the plural, hwereas it ought to be in the dual like its subject "two parties"". Criticise the evidence, not the people.

    Also, I don't understand - why would being a layman, i.e. someone without much expertise, make him better? Where is the evidence that his knowledge of Islam is weak? As for the nationalistic and ridiculous idea that living in another country automatically excludes you from expertise in an area, what would you say, for example, of the historiography of Soviet Russia? There, as in Islam, it was impossible to criticise the orthadoxy without punishment, so all histories of Soviet Russia, as all histories of Islam, were pro-the system. Only histories in other countries stood any chance of nearing impartiality. Considering that you yourself said that apostasy is the highest sin in Islam, and considering it is punishable by death in, for example, Iran, I would argue that *only* a foreigner or non-Muslim could stand any chance of impartial treatment of the text.



    You misunderstand me. I don't care how many languages he can speak (and please, again, stop with the meangingless tosh like "He is the All-Knower" - it really dilutes what was a good post). The point is this: Islam is the final revelation, and the Koran the key to salvation. However, until recently it was not even allowed to translate the Koran, and many claim that its beauty is only understandable in Arabic. Seen as the overwhelming majority of the world, including a large portion of Muslims, do not speak Arabic, how can the religion claim to be universal? If allah wanted all to be under his religion, why restrict access like that? Why not prove that he IS all powerful by dictating the same holy book to different prophets in every country in the world, so later it could be verified by translators, and so all could access Islam?

    Also, "his prophet was from the Arabian Peninsula, so surely it would make sense to explain things in Arabic" is just retarded. I was under the impression that God chose Muhammad, i.e. he could have chosen anyone else? Why not dictate to the Chinese, still the most powerful nation on earth? Or to the Spanish or English, who were later to dominate? I do not understand what you mean by the bit about washing and wiping.



    I think that that is a sick, possesive view. I would prefer that the women chose what they want to do - if they do not want "lecherous men" looking at them (for as we all know, people looking at you is toxic), they can dress 'modestly'; if not, they can do what they want. Why do you seem to desire totalitarianism? The state 'protecting' us from ourselves? Enforced modesty? Have you *read* of any of the 20th century dictatorships?



    I'm sorry but this, like your claim that a boy and a girl cannot be together alone because attraction is inevitable is very simply not true, and if you had had any experience of being in the presence of non-family girls you would know that. Some of my very best friends are girls and I am not even slightly attracted to them - I would far sooner spend time alone with them than with a sexually-repressed Muslim. The vast majority of men are not "wolves" and are not attracted to anything that moves - you are attracted to a small proportion of the girls you meet, and fancy even fewer. You are aware that girls are interested in men too, right?

    Do those who do not believe that your personal god's rules are divine have to live under them too? Do you believe that countries in which people are killed for being gay, yet women are punished for being raped, are setting the moral example we should be following? There is an issue on crime rates - we do not even know what the crime rates are in Iran and Saudi Arabia, living as they do under effective dictatorships. Since when is South Africa held in high esteem? If you know a single girl who would rather waddle around bathed in black cloth, denied sunlight, freedom of dress and peripheral vision so the state can 'protect' her - and I mean a thinking girl, not one simply doing it to get into an afterlife - then I would love to meet her. Do you yourself think that dressing women up in burquas would stop rape in South Africa? Do you believe that all men are actually secretly repressing an instinct to rape, and that in decadent Western countries they go outside, see a bit of flesh and go "actually, I cannot resist. I must rape this girl now"? If you do, it says more about yourself than us. Freedom is far more precious than this kind of paranoia.

    Praise is due to the humans who have gotten us where we are. God builds no houses.
    You are welcome, and thank you for your reply.

    Please note that Mr. Warraq is his father, 'ibn' means "son of".

    No, I did not mean that they corrupted his mind. Rather I meant that the fact that they are not Muslim, would lead to them portraying a version of Islam that would suit their own agenda, as if they believed what they taught, they would have become Muslim. For instance, they may not have reconciled between two seemingly conflicting statements and so on.

    Okay, his book called "Why I am not a Muslim"?

    The points mentioned by the author are not to do with the writing of the Qur'an. Rather they are to do with the recitation, and the slight differentiation in the way a word is pronounced. I do not understand the information being given. You have (I assume) copy and pasted the information? This is talking about the transmitters. The thing about Islam is that nearly everything was done orally when these predecessors were alive. When the Prophet Muhammad was alive, he taught the Qur'an to companions, and one of the most famous is Ubayy ibn Ka'b. He taught that authorised version onto more people, and they taught more people in that authorised version, never taking anything away and never adding anything to it, and so on down the chain until even today, people are still being taught in that chain. Some Muslims who have memorised the Qur'an hold that position, of being someone in the chain. That means, that their recitation of the Qur'an is exactly the same as the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

    The Warsh, Khalaf, Hafs, Qaloon and others are types of recitation. They have slight variations in the way a letter is pronounced. For example the letter 'r' will be pronounced with a smile in some types of recitation and in other times like a normal 'r'. Just like the 'r' of 'reed' is different to the 'r' of 'robot'. All of these versions are authentically traced back the Messenger of Allah himself.

    Different styles of recitation can be heard here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3C5dFeDLq0
    Note the slight changes in some of the words. It is the same chapter being recited ten times, in the ten different styles.

    As for the argument in which he states that the verses have the wrong form of the word, then as far as we know from what he has learnt including his official qualifications, he is not someone to be quoted on when referring to Classical Arabic. This is almost a language in itself. He studied Philosophy, Islamic studies and Arabic during his stay in the United Kingdom. His teachers being non-Muslim and having very English names such as "Montgomery Watt" show that they are not native Arabs, and as such there is an extremely remote chance of them studying Classical Arabic as this is hardly done in even most of our countries today, let alone other countries that do not have Arabic as their official language. Classical Arabic and Modern Arabic, or Speaking Arabic are different and have different rules affecting them. Again Ali Dashti, I think is not Arab, I think he is Persian. Persians speak Faarsi which is related to Arabic, much like Urdu, yet grammar is different.

    Studying Islam by yourself without a teacher, is like learning how to drive a motor vehicle, without any type of instructor. You need guidance. Even though it may appear as if he can drive, he will be making mistakes that will harm the car or may harm himself.

    Impartiality from a non-Muslim would result in them becoming Muslim as this is a perfect religion and leads only to the critic recognising his previous mistakes - if he knew what he was talking about. I know you will beg to differ on this point so there is no need to give a "refutation" of it.

    What you have said regarding the beauty etc is correct. However, learning the Arabic language is not compulsory on every Muslim, and they may take their religion from reputable scholars adhering to the right path, holding fast to the rope of Allah and His Messenger. If we were to ask "Why doesn't God just do such and such" then we would without doubt come to the question "Why doesn't God just make every one Muslim seeing as He is All-Powerful*?" Well, Allah Most High gave his reason in the Qur'an - "Verily I know that which you do not know". It is up to Him whether or not he wishes to disclose the wisdom behind his will. We follow Him and obey.

    Why retarded? If He chose Muhammad (and He could have chosen anyone) and Muhammad spoke Arabic, and his people were Arabic, and the immediate lands spoke Arabic, then would it not make sense to a sound mind that the message would be revealed in Arabic also?

    Washing is regarded more clean than merely wiping.

    Therefore washing has a higher status than wiping.

    In Classical Arabic the wiping - with low status should come after the washing - which has high status.

    Therefore the order of the words in the verse should begin with those that require washing rather than wiping, and the latter should be mentioned last as it is of low status.

    In the verse, the order of words does not follow this rule, which is considered to be the height of eloquence.

    Therefore the scholars deduced that the ablution must be performed in exactly this manner since otherwise it would have followed the grammatical pattern.


    The Muslim women are like pearls hidden from view to the rest of the world, yet open, and display their glory to whomsoever Allah has ordained them to do so. I am extremely proud when I see my sisters covering up and adhering to the laws of their Lord. They are the jewels of this nation.

    Would anyone show a stranger his jewellery that he possesses?

    When I mentioned that, it is from the Prophet Muhammad so automatically in the eyes of a Muslim it is true. There are exceptions however, and even though I am slightly sceptical as to your feelings towards your best friends, and I do not know your sexual orientation (you have never had any such thought about them ever?) I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps here is the exception.

    In answer to your question regarding the following of the laws of the state if one is not a Muslim then no, he does not have to where it conflicts with the Muslim people. For example people worshipping in monasteries is okay even though they worship 'Eesaa (Jesus) yet this is the utmost sin in Islam. However, when the begin to loot, rob and rape, this is where the state steps in.

    With regards to your second question, then no I do not believe that it is setting an example. However, the country in question from what I deduce is The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and no country is perfect. However, I do believe it sets a greater if not the best example than those of other countries. The rape of the woman you are referring to was not even covered properly by the western media, and it was evident that they think that serious issues are similar to "pick'n'mix". She had given a revealing photograph to a person who demanded that she meet up with him if she wanted it back (by now she was married). They were ambushed by some criminals who took them to a remote place and raped them. From the interview she gave, her description of where they were taken is vague and sheds doubt on her story "there were trees". Her punishment was not for the fact that she was raped or claims to have been, rather it was for her illegal seclusion with a man not directly related to her. While some may think that the judgement was harsh, the presiding judge was better informed of the circumstances. Note that people in countries such as the USA and countries in Europe do not have a full grasp of the situation. Not every detail is reported.

    Praise is due to Allah, who gave us the ability and the provision, to build houses.

    ________________________________ _

    * I do not see why it should dilute "an otherwise good post". In any case it is not doing anyone harm. It is a mere statement of the facts. Why should I stop using it? "Meaningless tosh" to you perhaps, I regard it as a reminder to myself and others, while affirming his names and attributes.



    ------------------

    WildBerrySpirit, do you have a source for that please?
    • #5
    #5

    Ow dear !

    Honestly, dont listen to the majority of Kaafir's here brother. I too am very westernized and no of some-one who was in a similar situation but he got through it, It'll get better, promis. This is what you do just visit the local mosque or one not soo near you so that you wouldn't be too embaressed and talk to some-one. Honestly, people are very empathetic, especially in my area. Where about are you based? I feel your problem though because i know people in a similar boat who have lost their families and really and truly it is a terrible situation. Dont listen to these fools that are telling you that god made you gay, come on man there not for real are they ?

    Anyways youll be fine, do some soul searching. Do some independant islamic studies and Allah will come to you and guide you, try to pray a few prayers and i swear it you'll get through it. Remember this life is only 4 days in comparison to the afterlife (eternally) You dont want to follow kaafirs. It can be done so long as you dont want to be this way.
    Good luck, and let me know where yuour from aswell. X
    • #1
    • Thread Starter
    #1

    hello...I know what you mean bro...I'm from Newcastle. I'm trying to be better its hard to become something ur not str8 away..i guess it just has to be done right?

    Where are you from? x
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mozzy1411)
    You are welcome, and thank you for your reply.

    Please note that Mr. Warraq is his father, 'ibn' means "son of".

    No, I did not mean that they corrupted his mind. Rather I meant that the fact that they are not Muslim, would lead to them portraying a version of Islam that would suit their own agenda, as if they believed what they taught, they would have become Muslim. For instance, they may not have reconciled between two seemingly conflicting statements and so on.

    Okay, his book called "Why I am not a Muslim"?

    The points mentioned by the author are not to do with the writing of the Qur'an. Rather they are to do with the recitation, and the slight differentiation in the way a word is pronounced. I do not understand the information being given. You have (I assume) copy and pasted the information? This is talking about the transmitters. The thing about Islam is that nearly everything was done orally when these predecessors were alive. When the Prophet Muhammad was alive, he taught the Qur'an to companions, and one of the most famous is Ubayy ibn Ka'b. He taught that authorised version onto more people, and they taught more people in that authorised version, never taking anything away and never adding anything to it, and so on down the chain until even today, people are still being taught in that chain. Some Muslims who have memorised the Qur'an hold that position, of being someone in the chain. That means, that their recitation of the Qur'an is exactly the same as the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

    The Warsh, Khalaf, Hafs, Qaloon and others are types of recitation. They have slight variations in the way a letter is pronounced. For example the letter 'r' will be pronounced with a smile in some types of recitation and in other times like a normal 'r'. Just like the 'r' of 'reed' is different to the 'r' of 'robot'. All of these versions are authentically traced back the Messenger of Allah himself.

    Different styles of recitation can be heard here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3C5dFeDLq0
    Note the slight changes in some of the words. It is the same chapter being recited ten times, in the ten different styles.

    As for the argument in which he states that the verses have the wrong form of the word, then as far as we know from what he has learnt including his official qualifications, he is not someone to be quoted on when referring to Classical Arabic. This is almost a language in itself. He studied Philosophy, Islamic studies and Arabic during his stay in the United Kingdom. His teachers being non-Muslim and having very English names such as "Montgomery Watt" show that they are not native Arabs, and as such there is an extremely remote chance of them studying Classical Arabic as this is hardly done in even most of our countries today, let alone other countries that do not have Arabic as their official language. Classical Arabic and Modern Arabic, or Speaking Arabic are different and have different rules affecting them. Again Ali Dashti, I think is not Arab, I think he is Persian. Persians speak Faarsi which is related to Arabic, much like Urdu, yet grammar is different.

    Studying Islam by yourself without a teacher, is like learning how to drive a motor vehicle, without any type of instructor. You need guidance. Even though it may appear as if he can drive, he will be making mistakes that will harm the car or may harm himself.

    Impartiality from a non-Muslim would result in them becoming Muslim as this is a perfect religion and leads only to the critic recognising his previous mistakes - if he knew what he was talking about. I know you will beg to differ on this point so there is no need to give a "refutation" of it.

    What you have said regarding the beauty etc is correct. However, learning the Arabic language is not compulsory on every Muslim, and they may take their religion from reputable scholars adhering to the right path, holding fast to the rope of Allah and His Messenger. If we were to ask "Why doesn't God just do such and such" then we would without doubt come to the question "Why doesn't God just make every one Muslim seeing as He is All-Powerful*?" Well, Allah Most High gave his reason in the Qur'an - "Verily I know that which you do not know". It is up to Him whether or not he wishes to disclose the wisdom behind his will. We follow Him and obey.

    Why retarded? If He chose Muhammad (and He could have chosen anyone) and Muhammad spoke Arabic, and his people were Arabic, and the immediate lands spoke Arabic, then would it not make sense to a sound mind that the message would be revealed in Arabic also?

    Washing is regarded more clean than merely wiping.

    Therefore washing has a higher status than wiping.

    In Classical Arabic the wiping - with low status should come after the washing - which has high status.

    Therefore the order of the words in the verse should begin with those that require washing rather than wiping, and the latter should be mentioned last as it is of low status.

    In the verse, the order of words does not follow this rule, which is considered to be the height of eloquence.

    Therefore the scholars deduced that the ablution must be performed in exactly this manner since otherwise it would have followed the grammatical pattern.


    The Muslim women are like pearls hidden from view to the rest of the world, yet open, and display their glory to whomsoever Allah has ordained them to do so. I am extremely proud when I see my sisters covering up and adhering to the laws of their Lord. They are the jewels of this nation.

    Would anyone show a stranger his jewellery that he possesses?

    When I mentioned that, it is from the Prophet Muhammad so automatically in the eyes of a Muslim it is true. There are exceptions however, and even though I am slightly sceptical as to your feelings towards your best friends, and I do not know your sexual orientation (you have never had any such thought about them ever?) I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps here is the exception.

    In answer to your question regarding the following of the laws of the state if one is not a Muslim then no, he does not have to where it conflicts with the Muslim people. For example people worshipping in monasteries is okay even though they worship 'Eesaa (Jesus) yet this is the utmost sin in Islam. However, when the begin to loot, rob and rape, this is where the state steps in.

    With regards to your second question, then no I do not believe that it is setting an example. However, the country in question from what I deduce is The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and no country is perfect. However, I do believe it sets a greater if not the best example than those of other countries. The rape of the woman you are referring to was not even covered properly by the western media, and it was evident that they think that serious issues are similar to "pick'n'mix". She had given a revealing photograph to a person who demanded that she meet up with him if she wanted it back (by now she was married). They were ambushed by some criminals who took them to a remote place and raped them. From the interview she gave, her description of where they were taken is vague and sheds doubt on her story "there were trees". Her punishment was not for the fact that she was raped or claims to have been, rather it was for her illegal seclusion with a man not directly related to her. While some may think that the judgement was harsh, the presiding judge was better informed of the circumstances. Note that people in countries such as the USA and countries in Europe do not have a full grasp of the situation. Not every detail is reported.

    Praise is due to Allah, who gave us the ability and the provision, to build houses.

    ________________________________ _

    * I do not see why it should dilute "an otherwise good post". In any case it is not doing anyone harm. It is a mere statement of the facts. Why should I stop using it? "Meaningless tosh" to you perhaps, I regard it as a reminder to myself and others, while affirming his names and attributes.



    ------------------

    WildBerrySpirit, do you have a source for that please?
    Hey - sorry for not replying forever; I've been busy. However, reading through your post something struck me - it swings wildly from eloquence and clear thought and rational argument, to mindless drivel. The more important point behind this is that some points - in particular the interesting argument about pronunciation and the bit about wiping vs. washing - seem to have been your own thoughts, while others - particularly the ludicrously simple and inane metaphors, and I'm thinking in particular "Would anyone show a stranger his jewellery that he possesses?" - seem to be but bleated.

    I have neither the patience nor the resources to discuss all you've said, but I'll do as best I can. Firstly, your point on recitation was excellent -if you could provide some evidence that those different readings (I quoted from a book, not the internet) are simply in how they're said, I'd be much obliged. Did you answer the problem of vowel variation?

    I do not see the point of the car metaphor. People didn't always need teachers to learn to drive and it is possible to learn without one. More importantly, I don't agree with the connection - is it not simply an excuse for one person to impose their interpretation of the Qur'an on students, claiming authority?

    The refutation that "Verily I know that which you do not know" is an old one and is still not impressive. Either you can use a god to explain this life's problems or you cannot; explaining away every paradox - e.g. the problem of evil - with "we cannot know his will" is simply avoiding the question.

    The retarded point, I presume, points to the fact that Islam is supposed to be a world religion that all can join, yet only those natively Arabic can gain a true understanding of its holy book. More importantly, most people had no contact with this Palestinian wasteland - above all, the most important empire of the time, the Chinese - so picking the Arabs seems a bit silly.

    Muslim women are like pearls etc. etc. - this truly sickens me. Women are not objects; ironically, all this fetishised obsession with covering them up achieves is objectivise them. Where does the Qur'an demand hijabs? As for "Would anyone show a stranger his jewellery that he possesses?" - women are not men's property. The point of jewellery is to be displayed. I am disgusted at and frankly pity the attitude that all men are irrestrainable beasts that cannot handle the sight of any flesh and, worse still, that it is then women's responsibility to prevent this.

    You have no reason to be skeptical at my attitudes towards my best friends. The evidence you have against are a) the Qur'an prohibits it; therefore it must be bad and b) a frankly fanatical opinion, with no rooting in fact and entirely based in prejudice and sexual repression, that men and women cannot treat each other as human beings. Do you not see the irony of what this obsession with preventing "impure thoughts" does? It causes them.

    Oh and I'm entirely sure of my orientation and, in any case, surprisingly have male friends too, so I'd be bound to find one of the group attractive whatever my orientation. Or are you implying that because I can see members of the opposite sex as humans and humans alone, I must be asexual? And I resent the claim that I am somehow the only human in existance to achieve this feat. Oh how I wish you could see what you are illogically missing by cutting off half of our race! Imagine refusing to talk to all people of a different skin colour to you too!

    I can't remember what your last para refers to, but that it boils down to "let's trust the judge" would not be so idiotic were it not for the fact that the judge in question is from Saudi Arabia - ditto on the claim that this country is an example to us all. In which country do you live?

    Praise is due to humanity, nature and science, which gave us the ability and the provision, to build houses. Allah never granted internet.

    * They mean nothing to me but white noise. It only means something to you - and you already know it, so there's no point shouting it out over and again. I never claimed it was harming anyone. You should stop it only insofar as it gets in the way of logical discourse - a well-supported argument does not sit well next to a ludicrous assertion. And he's god, for feck's sake, he doesn't need some weak human to point out his name and attributes in our so-limited language. Are you sure these kinds of pointless statements aren't just for show?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    do people get their idea from East Enders? If this is a real topic then my advice is to control your urges maybe hard but Islam doesn't condone homosexuality IMO its something that has been pushed into your brain by society men arnt naturally attracted to other men. Wait awhile these feelings might past I suggest you speak to someone you can TRUST and put 100% faith into. Possibly speak to a few of the wiser Muslims on here. I wont lie I have a disliking for gays but do what you gotta do.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Syed?

    I'm sorry OP, your situation is difficult and the relgious aspects make things more difficult. I think you need to decide if personal happiness is more important than the other factors.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    In Islam I don't think the feelings of homosexuality are punished, only the act of sodomy. So feel what you want.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Pray to Allah you don't get killed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rocious)
    well i'm a catholic and i wasn't offended. you're just hypersensitive.
    rep
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Be gay, who you innately are, and realise that it's a beautiful life, i.e. reconsider what you believe in.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Islam is generally absurd but condonable when not spoken about, but the above posts are completely deluded and preposterous.
    • #1
    • Thread Starter
    #1

    Hello everybody...im so shocked at these responses i didnt think anyone would care...its a really nice feeling that some ppl are willing to help !

    I was just wondering if you have had homosexual intamacy and you realise it was wrong...is there any way i can be forgiven? or am i basically done for?

    Thankyou.
    • #6
    #6

    Oh dear, this is a tough one!
    I'm assuming your from an asian background? Because those are usually the toughest parents and relatives to get around, I should know haha. This looks like an episode from eastenders, syed? :P:
    lol
    Anyway, what I would do is confide in Allah, I too am Muslim, and I would pray to Allah. And I mean wholeheartedly!!
    I was going through a realllllyyy tough patch these last few months but I prayed and prayed with patience and perseverence, and finally what I thought was right Allah showed me was wrong, and now even though I miss it, I realised it was not right for me. And I thank Allah for showing me the right way, or I would have found out 5 years down the line and it would have crippled me to an extent of no turning back.
    Thats the best advise I can give! Keep us updated!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    :hugs:

    The sad truth of it is many religions and homosexuality aren't well matched (which is sad when they all speak of such a 'loving' god).

    Being gay isn't something you can change or control, so the feelings will always be there. No amount of religion or praying is ever going to 'release' them or anything, no matter what some people will say :rolleyes:.

    I guess it comes down to whether you want to take the chance of being happy and jumping over some hurdles to get there, or being miserable to conform to a god who made you and yet won't accept you.

    (fyi, i believe in a god that would accept people as he made them and wouldn't punish/judge anyone as long as they lived a good life regardless of their sexuality/sexual acts being as there is so much more to a person then who they jump into bed with anyway)
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Stay celibate. Or give up your religion.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 6, 2009
The home of Results and Clearing

2,657

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?

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.