www.ismaili.net

The problem with that logic (not an error on your part by any means) is that there's recursion, because if there's confusion in the interpretation of the Quran, we turn to the imam.

And I can't speak for everyone supporting homosexuals, but for me I don't see how being a homosexual is a sin. Sins seem to have a clear destructive effect and how it affects society or others. Alcohol, smoking and certain drugs have self destructive affects on the body thus making them bad for people and so they are sins. Now, in the Eastern world, especially over a 1000 years ago, one can only imagine the stigma someone would have to deal with by being openly gay, even in the western world it exists. So, other than dealing with being ostracized from society, which would cease to exist as almost all of you have stated that you don't judge someone for being gay. So, my question is, what is it about homosexuality that is bad?

There is no recursion because the Quran is pretty clear on this. If you are to show me contradicting verses from the Quran or other translations of Quran (from legitimate translators) that refute all of these ayats above, then I am open to admitting that there is, at least a bit of, ambiguity.

Lying may not have a clear destructive effect, yet it can still be justifiably argued as a sin. Drinking in moderation may not have a clear destructive effect, however ISMS said not to drink even a sip of alcohol. It is an act that has been told to be wrong in this world.

I came across a study, a meta analysis with a sample running into the thousands and comparing altruism between males and females. The empirical rigor and matching strategy suggest this to be very sound. They took dyads of gender dissimilar twins and found that 50% of the variance in altruism was explained by gender and thus the role of genetics cannot be understated here. Anyone familiar with research in the social sciences knows that this figure is tremendous.

This comes back to my argument earlier about personality factors. People are born with different challenges that they must encounter in life, some are born with personality factors that will sway them away from religion/God, some will sway them towards alcohol, some will sway them towards homosexuality. This may also be associated with cultural dimensions, such as uncertainty avoidance or masculinity. Still, having been raised in an environment it may not be a conscious choice people make. The intensity of the challenges may be a reflection of sins that were committed in our past life or lives. Or maybe not. Regardless, Allah sent prophets to every part of this world to convey His message and to communicate certain "rules". Many of these rules contain consistency across prophets. Some dont. Homosexuality does. It is in our hands to face and overcome these challenges through imaan. We have a living present Imam who guides us and He has told us to look to the Quran for unclear issues. I know I'm taking this back to a very simple approach, but I have the utmost confidence in the teachings and guidance of the Imam and this holds greater importance in my eyes than the more academic approaches that I or anyone else have taken.

You didn't really get the point I was making, I am not speaking about commit a single isolated act of homosexuality. (And a single drop of alcohol is bad because it almost always leads to a second, third, etc.) Now, the main reason why I've been avoiding using Quranic versus is because I don't know Arabic so I'll be basing the meaning off of someone's subjective translation and I also lack the historical knowledge in that time so to use the Quran as an argument is no different than putting out your own opinion, I say this because really doubt any one grabs translations from the skeptic's translation or an atheists' translation, etc.

You are right about personality factors and genetics playing a role in many decisions in our life including alcoholism. However, as Qifar pointed out with the information to back it up, it's not a choice. Any one of us can easily go out and have a beer or a smoke if we wanted to, but can't make someone a homosexual or a hetrosexual, they either are or they're not.

I came across a study, a meta analysis with a sample running into the thousands and comparing altruism between males and females. The empirical rigor and matching strategy suggest this to be very sound. They took dyads of gender dissimilar twins and found that 50% of the variance in altruism was explained by gender and thus the role of genetics cannot be understated here. Anyone familiar with research in the social sciences knows that this figure is tremendous.

Yam,
You obviously lack any knowledge of science. If twins are of the opposite sex they are dizygotic, thus, sharring only half of their genetics with one other. That is 50% for those of you too stupid to figure that out on your own. Their genetic relationship is the same as that of full sibs. Therefore, and effect size of 50% matches the genetic difference perfectly, however, not their environment since they are raised in almost identical ones. Nature wins again. Also, what is your operational definition of altruism? Being a meta-analyses (that is a statistics accumlation of several different studies since you obviously don't know what that means) its not not very well controlled or rigorous (however, the loss of rigor is allegedly made up for with a large sample size). And if all that isn't good enough for you, SEX IS GENETICALLY DETERMINED!

The nature/nuture argument is moot, since early development is out of control of the individual.

-qifar

qifar wrote:

I came across a study, a meta analysis with a sample running into the thousands and comparing altruism between males and females. The empirical rigor and matching strategy suggest this to be very sound. They took dyads of gender dissimilar twins and found that 50% of the variance in altruism was explained by gender and thus the role of genetics cannot be understated here. Anyone familiar with research in the social sciences knows that this figure is tremendous.

Yam,
You obviously lack any knowledge of science. If twins are of the opposite sex they are dizygotic, thus, sharring only half of their genetics with one other. That is 50% for those of you too stupid to figure that out on your own. Their genetic relationship is the same as that of full sibs. Therefore, and effect size of 50% matches the genetic difference perfectly, however, not their environment since they are raised in almost identical ones. Nature wins again. Also, what is your operational definition of altruism? Being a meta-analyses (that is a statistics accumlation of several different studies since you obviously don't know what that means) its not not very well controlled or rigorous (however, the loss of rigor is allegedly made up for with a large sample size). And if all that isn't good enough for you, SEX IS GENETICALLY DETERMINED!

The nature/nuture argument is moot, since early development is out of control of the individual.

-qifar

lol.. I lack knowledge..? you dont simply say 50% of genetics is different so the effect size would be 1-0.5. You obviously have done no statistical analysis before.

See pg. 23 for an example, I cant find the actual study and dont care to spend time looking for it, but this shows similar results with the genetics implications:
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi ... ookieSet=1

Dont tell me you think you know more than the authors and editors of the journal because we know thats BS. Also, you've obviously not done a meta analysis before. It is the accumulation of prior studies, so one of the limitations is that its only as good as its primary studies, however its one of the most rigorous statistical analysis one can do and the coding represents a heavily critical and large portion of what editors and peer reviewers examine for it to be accepted into journals. It is not nearly as simple as a pooling of results. Maybe if you try and get a publication you'll understand this process better, but with your kindergarden type response, it seems like you're no where close.

Kmaherali, my problem is that you're making believe the word of man and not God, you're giving a few subjective translations (all of whom have a similar agenda) leading to agreement. As long as something translates back to the original text any translation can be 'valid' but you're using valid as 'correct.'

excellent post MEHERALI


QUOTE


"In the concept of Islam, Allah is eternal, His creation knows no limit in time, nor in form and as a result He creates when He will, when He wishes, when He wills, how he wishes, where He wishes and man's perception of science is therefore nothing more than the perception of God's creation, His continuous creation, and there is no conflict between Islam and science but at the same time do not make the mistake of becoming vain and proud, simply because technology surrounds you. On the contrary, those who are most qualified in scientific subjects today are often the most humble and the most convinced in their attitude to the existence of Allah and therefore as you prepare for the future, do not shun the technological era, but do not make the mistake of thinking that, that era is the creation of man." (Silver Jubilee Mulaqat, NewYork, June 14th, 1983)



now regarding HOMOS being ok in ISLAM , as a ismaili[ even mentioned in ismaili constitution ] i believe that quran is the word of god

[7:80-81] Lot said to his people, "You commit such an abomination; no one
in the world has done it before! "You practice sex with the men,
instead of the women. Indeed, you are a transgressing people."

[26:165-166] "Do you have sex with the males, of all the people? "You forsake
the wives that your Lord has created for you! Indeed, you are
transgressing people."



bro's tell me this , can u understand this simple verse or its meaning ???


sometimes i laugh on ur IQ'S when u come up with stupid ideas of the west

remember a firman of PRESENT IMAM in late 60's ???


"my beloved spiritual children islam has nothing to do with west or western culture, you dont have to compromise ur culture for the sake of the west, if you name is ameen dont try to call urself ANDY or JOHN, dont forget we are muslims"

i have that book ill give u the day and date of the firman insha allah if somebody wants it


GAYS were/are cursed by god and quran made it veryyy veryyy simple


AS ALLAH SAID IN HOLY QURAN

[17:89] We have cited for the people in this Quran all kinds of examples,
but most people insist upon disbelieving.

[18:54] We have cited in this Quran every kind of example, but the human
being is the most argumentative creature.

[39:27] We have cited for the people every kind of example in this Quran,
that they may take heed.



[3:110] You are the best community ever raised among the people: you advocate
righteousness and forbid evil, and you believe in GOD. If the followers of
the scripture believed, it would be better for them. Some of them do believe,
but the majority of them are wicked.



finally always seek refuge in GOD bcoz he is the one who created all of us and unto him shall v return


[7:200]When the devil whispers to you any whisper, seek refuge in GOD; He is Hearer, Omniscient.

[25:70]Exempted are those who repent, believe, and lead a righteous life. GOD transforms their sins into credits. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

If you have Arabic on your computer, you should be able to see the Qur'anic verses I am posting. I'll use Shakir's translation since it seems to me he goes for the most literal. Please point out any mistakes in Arabic I might be making!

EDIT: It seems these forums cannot display the Arabic. I'll leave it on here nonetheless.

A few links. None of these except the last seem to be reliable, but they're simply interesting to read:
http://ilrs.org/faith/f2k5.2.html
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 825AAJqkGO
http://www.bostonspiritmagazine.com/art ... slims.html

My logic is this, in its most simplest form:
Imam's word is highest -> Imam says for issues that there may be confusion around look to Quran -> there is confusion surrounding homosexuality -> Look at Quran.

I agree that you should look at the Qur'an and try to be as simple as possible, in cases like these at least, obviously there is so much more to the Qur'an! However, ignoring the historical context of such revelations is dangerous. The Qur'an itself lacks quite a bit of context, and you'd agree with me there are many verses that only make sense of the historical context is known. A very good tafsir that goes into historical context is Tafsir ibn Kathir, however that itself is several centuries old now so it itself needs additional context.

There is also a big leap of faith you take when you assume that the homosexuality then is the same as the homosexuality now, and that the context is universal, and several other things.

Quran in the references above condemn homosexuality without ambiguity. By saying "men instead of women" yes, lesbian is not explicit in there. Regardless, it shows that being gay is wrong. Your argument as I remember it was about these acts being committed to children. The Quran unambigiously illustrates the opposite. Therefore, according to shariah this is haraam.

I have heard many who try to justify drinking as ok because of "context".. that people back then would drink and then gamble their families.. similarly, this is apparently why gambling was wrong as well according to "context". Not saying that context is not important, just saying it can become heavily exaggerated and hence misleading.

I wish to apologize, the part being exclusive to children was elsewhere in the Qur'an, when the people of Sodom ask for the angels who have come in the form of young men to Prophet Lut. You are correct; the last two verses I am about to address use the Arabic plural of man al-rijaal.

Shariah is hardly derived from the Qur'an, it is mostly derived from the sunnah (the root of the name Sunni), which we Ismaili do not, and arguably have rarely followed. Shariah also dictates, among all four schools of Sunni law, and the Twelver school of law, that an apostate is to be executed as well, and know that it is rare for these five schools to share anything in common, all five in fact have different methods of prayer, even within themselves. The Qur'anic verse on there being no compulsion in religion is too vague to be used for any shariah edict, though a few scholars in history have tried, and I applaud their application of it.

The Qur'an says many other things without ambiguity (I haven't included verses that one can obviously deduce their context by surrounding verses, such as verses on fighting):

[Shakir 5:51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Do you have Jewish and Christian friends? I could add to this incorrect context and note that Imam al-Hakim destroyed the holiest place in Christianity, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, in his battle against these "bad" people.

It's easy to come to one of the thousands of incorrect conclusions, but it is difficult to come to the one true conclusion.

[Shakir 5:82] Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.

Do you believe Jews are most in enmity to Muslims? Has the Imam ever directly countered this statement by saying they aren't? Even if he said we are to build bridges, as he specifically said the Jews aren't the group out there who hate us the most?

[Shakir 9:30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

Does anyone know a Jew who believes that Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah?

I haven't even included verses about Christians going to hell for their incorrect beliefs, which (at first at least) counteracts another verse saying Christians will be fine if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. Without context the Qur'an contradicts itself history, logic, and itself on several points. This is why we adhere to Ismailism, this is why we need Hadhir Imam, and Hadhir Imam has taught us a framework. No historian or scholar can ever replace the Qur'an manifested in its totality in Sahib al-Zamaan.

There is an incorrect step of logic going on in the drinking and gambling thing. They are implying that what was wrong about drinking and gambling was that it was done with their families, when we can see from sociology and science today the destructive aspects of both. To the contrary, homosexuality brings more positive aspects to society than it subtracts. To take out logic and humanism from understanding morality in the zahir is a big step backward, and away from the faith of Ismailism rather than towards it.

I explained the context of homosexuality in detail in my previous post. Was there an issue with it? Do you feel I shouldn't look at the historical male-centric homosexuality the Qur'an was addressing?

Male homosexaul activities are condemned as unnatural. 26:165-6

أَتَأْتُونَ الذُّكْرَانَ مِنَ الْعَالَمِينَ {165}
وَتَذَرُونَ مَا خَلَقَ لَكُمْ رَبُّكُمْ مِنْ أَزْوَاجِكُم بَلْ أَنتُمْ قَوْمٌ عَادُونَ {166}

[Shakir 26:165] What! do you come to the males from among the creatures
[Shakir 26:166] And leave what your Lord has created for you of your wives? Nay, you are a people exceeding limits.

I believe the Arabic here is specifically asking a male (in Arabic that can be denoted) if he is coming to males from among all creatures. The last verse says, that the Lord has created for these individuals women they should marry, which is exactly what I noted with unnatural homosexuality: heterosexuals taking on the role of a person attracted to males. For example, in my homeland of Afghanistan, a Pashtun man will take a young male lover in order to boost his social status.

The reason this is important is the Allah says he created us in pairs, perhaps part of the reason we Ismailiyya are monogamous. Are born homosexuals included in having a female pair?

Male homosexuals commit abominations and act senselessly. 27:54-55.

وَلُوطًا إِذْ قَالَ لِقَوْمِهِ أَتَأْتُونَ الْفَاحِشَةَ وَأَنتُمْ تُبْصِرُونَ {54}
أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ الرِّجَالَ شَهْوَةً مِّن دُونِ النِّسَاء بَلْ أَنتُمْ قَوْمٌ تَجْهَلُونَ {55}

[Shakir 27:54] And (We sent) Lut, when he said to his people: What! do you commit indecency while you see?
[Shakir 27:55] What! do you indeed approach men lustfully rather than women? Nay, you are a people who act ignorantly.

I believe again the Qur'an again addresses men, about their approaching of other men lustfully.

Verse 27:55 says that they are approaching men lustfully than women. As context would show, is it possible for them to approach women lustfully at all? For an unnatural homosexual, it is.

Say these individuals cannot be attracted to females, would Allah then ask why they approached males rather than women when He created them that way? Once again, this verse makes quite a bit of sense in the historical context of homosexuality, but it does not make sense for individuals whom do not have a choice in the matter.

If I recall correctly, the Qur'an states elsewhere that those unable to fight in battle do not have to. Now, using your logic that anything can and should in fact be done for the Imam, why did Allah leave these individuals exempt? Surely anyone can fight, just perhaps not well.

Male homosexuals acts are condemned as unnatural. 29:28-29.

وَلُوطًا إِذْ قَالَ لِقَوْمِهِ إِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ الْفَاحِشَةَ مَا سَبَقَكُم بِهَا مِنْ أَحَدٍ مِّنَ الْعَالَمِينَ {28}
أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ الرِّجَالَ وَتَقْطَعُونَ السَّبِيلَ وَتَأْتُونَ فِي نَادِيكُمُ الْمُنكَرَ فَمَا كَانَ جَوَابَ قَوْمِهِ إِلَّا أَن قَالُوا ائْتِنَا بِعَذَابِ اللَّهِ إِن كُنتَ مِنَ الصَّادِقِينَ {29}

[Shakir 29:28] And (We sent) Lut when he said to his people: Most surely you are guilty of an indecency which none of the nations has ever done before you;
[Shakir 29:29] What! do you come to the males and commit robbery on the highway, and you commit evil deeds in your assemblies? But nothing was the answer of his people except that they said: Bring on us Allah's punishment, if you are one of the truthful.

This goes into multiple crimes of the people of Sodom which adds interestingly into their destruction. Likewise, the Qur'an states elsewhere that Allah never destroyed a nation simply for disbelief, but rather for sins as well, and here He does not just list the sin of homosexuality, he in fact goes as far as to list several other sins the people of Sodom have committed. In fact, I don't recall these sins being mentioned in the Biblical narrative of the story.

Also, I would doubt that homosexuality only appeared some five thousand years ago, the time of this story. It is seen in animals, and more likely than not early humans or their genetic ancestors would have displayed it too.

Hazar Imam, unless Im missing something here, has not made farmans on murder, rape, adultery, theft, etc. In the same light, Hazar Imam has not made a farman on homosexuality. The Quran however is clear on this. If the Imams have said things like "If you believe me as God, then I am your God", and ginans have been sung in front of Imam which say "Allah eh hi Imam", then would the Imam be scared of saying homosexuality is ok? Especially considering that some Ismailis have suffered because of it by the jamat.

Hadhir Imam has not refuted many Qur'anic beliefs, such as the whipping of fornicators. If we speak of a grand abolishment of shariah, much of sexual practice is underneath that. In Ismailism (and in fact Islam), one is not limited to deducing morality based on religious texts or edicts. We are not Christians. Our faith has always been strongly tied with humanism and empiricism, which asserts that the human experience can for the most part define morality. Shariah never has been the embodiment of pure morality, even though arguably it stayed within its confines.

Interestingly you bring up rape. Can you find rape in the Qur'an, where it is said to be morally incorrect? The only thing I know of is prohibiting a man from having sex from people outside of his “right hand”, denoting his wives and slave women he owns.

This allows rape, since he can have sex with his slave women, and shariah doesn't prohibit him forcing her. Rape is halaal under shariah. But what does prohibit him, and why an Ismaili under shariah wouldn't rape, is akhlaq.

1) You discredit the Quran and ignore it, while others have posted speeches, farmans, quranic passages, hadiths, etc to argue against homosexuality, no one has been able to support homosexuality using any evidence from our tarikah.

I've never discredited the Qur'an nor do I ignore it (this post should prove that), the Qur'an is the foundation of our faith. Can you find a place where I disagree with the Qur'an? I never do!

People have posted speeches and farmans that, you have to agree with me on this, don't even use the word, homosexual and can be understood in varying ways. If the phrase homosexual wasn't brought up, I wouldn't even apply the interpretations that are being applied in this topic. None of these farmans or speeches are direct, and in fact almost all of them are extremely indirect and don't seem to be even talking about the situation at hand!

As far as hadiths, if we are going to use hadith we should have some knowledge of hadith science, and I don't believe the people who are posting these hadith know of it. Who are the narrators? Which books is it in, the Sahih Sitta Sunni books, the Four Books of Twelver Shi'a Islam? There is lots of textual criticism that goes along with hadith, especially when it comes to hadith of another branch. There is a reason that the Sunni and Twelver do not share a single book of hadith in common. I believe using hadith is extremely weak, and also recall, hadith too has a historical context as does the Qur'an.

Even the Twelvers a few centuries ago disregarded the hadith books they once claimed to be “sahih” like the Sunni books in favor of textual criticism, a huge jump for the Twelver faith. These books are no longer considered infallible, rather now, an Ayatollah will give edicts on shariah.

2) You use Nasir Khusraw and his teaching to justify homosexuality. Please think through this. Its nothing to do with me being like a sunni. If I believed that gambling or drinking moderately is ok, because I know its contentious and I could be wrong, I would NEVER use the name of the Imam Mustaqarr or Imam Mustawda or a hujjat to justify it. This has nothing to do with me being like a sunni.

I think there is a misunderstanding here, and you're absolutely correct, I should clear it up. Nasir-i Khusraw never mentions homosexuality from my knowledge. He teaches us a logical framework with which to deduce the truth that is the center of the Nasiriyya tradition. I am attempting to work within this logical and consistent framework, and my beliefs do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of our Hujjat even though I believe I am matching my beliefs to his, my posts only reflect my meager attempts at the truth.

3) Your argument against reincarnation discredits Imam Mustawda who have always been a critical part of our religion from the day of creation. You have shown an understanding of some aspects of our tarikah in your post, surely you understand the role and importance of the Imam Mustawda.

I've shown only some understanding of our tariqah? Can you tell me where I am misunderstanding our tariqah? It'd be helpful for me, just make sure you point out where I'm wrong, not where I happen to disagree with you.

This confused me, are you saying an Imam Mustawda specifically mentioned reincarnation non-figuratively? Or are you saying (what I assume) that the Imam Mustawda is the same soul, continually incarnated? Because that would be incorrect, since I believe more than one Imam Mustawda has been alive at the same time (but only one was designated). His nature is similiar to that of Sahib al-Zamaan, where more than one Sahib had been alive at the same, but only one held the position.

To the last point, I think you're making a grand assumption that the nature of the Imam Mustawda can only work within the framework of universal reincarnation, where every individual reincarnates. That is a very big assumption, and you should agree.

I don't really want to discuss reincarnation, because it is somewhat split along jamaat lines even if it mixes once in a while (Satpanthis denying reincarnation, Nasiriyya accepting it). I'd just like you to understand and agree that reincarnation is not a universally accepted doctrine in our community and religion, even if you believe in it. Can we agree to that point? There is a topic on reincarnation on this forum where many members express doubt in it too, mostly Satpanthis.

Kid,

It seems a bit ironic that you constantly bash the west and the people who reside there. It is both offensive and ignorant to claim superiority of another person let alone a culture as a whole. The quotes you posted hardly support the point you're attempting to make. To start with the Quran, if we go back in time, the idea of homosexuality was quite different. Before religious intervention, homosexual acts were done by many men regardless of sexual orientation because men were seen as being superior to women at the time. So it was 'respectful' for a man to lie with another man and this was not considered being unfaithful. That also seems to answer why many quotes refer to men only, don't use the term homosexual, and the main disgust is the unfaithfulness.

In regards to the 'corruption on the west,' I am not aware of what insecurity or paranoia you have towards the west but your quotes in no way argued that the western world is bad. The main thing ismailis needed to be aware of is to not directly assimilate into the specific culture, which is important in the US specifically because it is more of a melting pot vs. Canada, which is more of a mosaic and because North America is still predominantly Christian.

You are right that there isn't/ shouldn't be a contradiction between science and faith. Between the scientific evidence Qifar has posted, the reasoning behind why it could have been considered wrong, (which no one else has been able to come up with,) and how human translation is affecting it, it seems to be quite evident that science and faith aren't contradicting one another, but rather you're trying to create a contradiction because the tie breaker in Islam is that Religion>Science.

For any future posts, it would be appreciated if you stop insulting the western world. There are flaws in every society, which is why the idea of a utopia is impossible, so it's not like your Country of Origin is any better.

A 1337

for ur kind information i reside in USA , plus iam not against WEST iam only against the WESTERN culture which i see in my day to day life

and regarding people in olden times used to sleep with men , i wanna remind u that we have nothing to do with what happened before quran was manifested in AHLE BAIT's house

after quran was manifested GOD made it cryssssssssstal clear that HIJRAS/GAYS/HOMOS or WUTEVER name u call them r CURSED by allah[swt]

when allah said NO HIJRAS that means NO HIJRAS ,simple !!!!


the problem is u guys are worst that deserted arabs , u wanna enjoy all that is prohibited

for eg: our ismaili brothers in USA who owns GAS STATION ...selling liquor...people GAMBLING

when u ask them ...u get a quite satisfying answer

"WHEN BAPPA CAN BREED AND GAMBLE Y CANT WE ???"

"BAPPA NEVER MADE ANY FIRMAN ON NOT SELLING LIQUOR, HE HIMSELF SELLS ALCOHOL IN HIS HOTELS"

" WE CAN MARRY MORE THAN 2 WOMAN BCOZ BAPPA IS DOING THAT "

i really feel pity on u people who know nuthing about islam and quran and yet come here and say "ALHUMDOLLILAH WE R MUSLIMS"

enzuru, I'm going to be more brief than in the past because I feel that we're starting to say the same thing again and again. Although your analysis of the ayats was exactly what I was looking for, thanks.

27:54-55 I still feel is unambiguous. You have shown how some other ayats are ambiguous and I agree with you there. However, this verse still demonstrates that one should not approach men lustfully instead of women. You gave a perfect example of how Allah provided an exception to people from fighting in the war in Quran. Why did He not do this with homosexuals then? Keep in mind, even assuming a different context does not necessarily mean homosexuality is ok or has not been condemned.

The ayats cited against befriending jews/christians, Imams have overrided these ayats. No Imam has overrided homosexuality. As long as that does not happen I will continue to follow the Imams farman about looking to the Quran on these matters. About saying "some" knowledge, its just the way I speak, I didn't mean it that way. When I look at farmans I see interpretations of homosexuality being haram, and when you see Qur'an you see interpretations of homosexuality not being haram. To some degree this is due to personality factors and value systems. I've enjoyed this debate.

Are you kidding me Kid, what life was like around the time the Quran was made is absolutely relevant, because that was the direct context it was referred to. I should also point out, that only a few translations directly use homosexuality, the main argument was sodomy, which includes sexual acts that are not intercourse within a marriage.

I made some strong points as to justifying the context of the Quran and numerous scientific studies on homosexuality, so before you rant in all caps I suggest you re-read the previous postings by Qifar, Enzuru and myself. If you're not convinced of the science you can do some research and you can try to find reasoning as to why my logic may be false or a reason why those Ayats are in context and actually justify your arguments.

Your argument against the Western Culture would not get appreciation it deserves tangled in this thread, if you actually want to state your reasoning rationally, I encourage you to send me a private message since you seem to be quite informal with your threads.

Finally, I'll remind you again to watch what you right, there are people of many cultural backgrounds, and attacking people based on where they're from and calling everyone hypocrites is wrong on so many levels.

YaAliYaMowla wrote:enzuru, I'm going to be more brief than in the past because I feel that we're starting to say the same thing again and again. Although your analysis of the ayats was exactly what I was looking for, thanks.

27:54-55 I still feel is unambiguous. You have shown how some other ayats are ambiguous and I agree with you there. However, this verse still demonstrates that one should not approach men lustfully instead of women. You gave a perfect example of how Allah provided an exception to people from fighting in the war in Quran. Why did He not do this with homosexuals then? Keep in mind, even assuming a different context does not necessarily mean homosexuality is ok or has not been condemned.

The ayats cited against befriending jews/christians, Imams have overrided these ayats. No Imam has overrided homosexuality. As long as that does not happen I will continue to follow the Imams farman about looking to the Quran on these matters. About saying "some" knowledge, its just the way I speak, I didn't mean it that way. When I look at farmans I see interpretations of homosexuality being haram, and when you see Qur'an you see interpretations of homosexuality not being haram. To some degree this is due to personality factors and value systems. I've enjoyed this debate.

It's been an honor debating this issue with someone as intelligent as you. As always, Sahib al-Zamaan knows best, and He is haqq. I feel with the introduction of the universal nikah ceremony for the entire tariqah, that Hadhir Imam said would be given to us in the upcoming months, this question may be put to rest. Or not!

As for me, the little lady, I am hoping maybe to catch one of those hottie men from the Syrian jamaat, insha'Allah! I'm turning 20 this year so it's almost time... I just hope they go for Afghani women!

Are you kidding me Kid, what life was like around the time the Quran was made is absolutely relevant, because that was the direct context it was referred to. I should also point out, that only a few translations directly use homosexuality, the main argument was sodomy, which includes sexual acts that are not intercourse within a marriage.


SO UR SAYING THAT ALLAH[SWT] SHOULD HAVE MADE A WHOLE CHAPTER REGARDING GAYS LIKE U ?????

MAN SOMETIMES I FEEL HOW FOOLISH CAN A PERSON B, WHEN GOD COMMANDS IN HIS HOLY QURAN THAT NO GAYS ARE ALLOWED THAT MEANS NO GAYS !!!!

QURAN IS NOT FOR THOSE WHO USED TO STUDY IT 1400 YEARS AGO, ITS FOR THE WHOLE MANKIND, BUT OUR GENIOUS MISSIONARY SAHEBS SAID QURAN IS ONLY FOR OLDEN DAYS....V DONT NEED QURAN

BUT WHAT FOOLS FORGET IS EVEN OUR HOLY DUA CONSISTS OF HOLY QURAN E PAAK

AND THE MOST SHOCKING THING IS THE DUA, I SEE V HAD SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH DEBATE ON DUA AND NAMAZ

WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW ?????

13TH DEC 2008, H.I OPENLY SAID THAT VLL HAVE NEW ISMAILI NAMAZ, all the big names who used to write soooooo much about dua vs namaz suddenly vanished from this forum


THIS IS BCOZ THEY THINK QURAN IS NOT AT ALL COMPULSARY FOR ISMAILIS



SAME IS UR CASE

U ALWAYS CRY SAYING QURAN IS FIXED OR I THOUGHT OF PASTING QURANIC AAYATS, SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I CHALLENGE U TO COPY/PASTE ANY QURANIC AAYAT OR GINAN WHERE IN ALLAH[SWT] OR OUR PIR SAID BEING A GAY IS NATURAL OR ITS PERMITTED IN ISLAM


I made some strong points as to justifying the context of the Quran and numerous scientific studies on homosexuality, so before you rant in all caps I suggest you re-read the previous postings by Qifar, Enzuru and myself. If you're not convinced of the science you can do some research and you can try to find reasoning as to why my logic may be false or a reason why those Ayats are in context and actually justify your arguments.


LOOOOOOOOOOOOL I WANT U TO PASTE ALL THE AAYATS HERE PLZZZ, LET ISMAILI BRO'S READ ALL THE HOLY AAYATS AND SEE WHAT GOD WANTS TO SAY ABOUT GAYS

ONCE AGAIN ITS AN OPEN CHALLENGE PROVE ME GAYS R NOT PROHIBITED IN QURAN AND ILL DO WUTEVER U WANT

OK ????



Your argument against the Western Culture would not get appreciation it deserves tangled in this thread, if you actually want to state your reasoning rationally, I encourage you to send me a private message since you seem to be quite informal with your threads.


WELL MY FREN I APOLOGISE IF I HURT UR FEELING BUT DONT U THINK V SHUDNT SHOW ANY MERCY TO THOSE WHO TAKE QURAN FOR MOCKERY AND MAKE FUN OF ALLAHS COMMANDS ????


Finally, I'll remind you again to watch what you right, there are people of many cultural backgrounds, and attacking people based on where they're from and calling everyone hypocrites is wrong on so many levels


AND IN ALL THE CULTURES MY FREN HOMOSEXUALITY IS


"HARAM"

ENZURU

since ur a genious in fabrication lets read what u said in the light of holy quran



[Shakir 26:165] What! do you come to the males from among the creatures
[Shakir 26:166] And leave what your Lord has created for you of your wives? Nay, you are a people exceeding limits.

I believe the Arabic here is specifically asking a male (in Arabic that can be denoted) if he is coming to males from among all creatures. The last verse says, that the Lord has created for these individuals women they should marry, which is exactly what I noted with unnatural homosexuality: heterosexuals taking on the role of a person attracted to males. For example, in my homeland of Afghanistan, a Pashtun man will take a young male lover in order to boost his social status.


The reason this is important is the Allah says he created us in pairs, perhaps part of the reason we Ismailiyya are monogamous. Are born homosexuals included in having a female pair?


MY REPLY :

as always an ismaili reads only one aayat and comes to the conclusion that yes there is IMAMAT, DUA ,HOMOSEXUALITY IS KOOL ETC ETC

if u read quran ull see the people during the time of h.lut started indulging in GAY SEX and one day H.LUT[as] had some guests/followers visiting his holy place, when H.LUT[AS] realised that all the gay people r eyeing to sleep/use his guests he locked the door of his own house and plead to his people to leave them and do not commit such crime bcoz its against allahs command

if u read the same quran H.LUT[AS] gave his own daughters to the people and said treat/use them as n how u want [ have sex with them but leave his guests ] but they [gays] showed no intrest in his daughters and said hand them over to us !!!!

now if allah is talking about stealing/robbing/slavery or killing people why in the world wud H.LUT[AS] will give both his daughters to the people[gays] and say use my daughters but leave those who follow me !!!!!!




read more in the same quran when ANGELS descended on H.IBRAHIM[AS] saying we are going to destroy the whole city :

29:31 (Y. Ali) When Our Messengers came to Abraham with the good news, they said: "We are indeed going to destroy the people of this township: for truly they are (addicted to) crime."

29:32 (Y. Ali) He said: "But there is Lut there." They said: "Well do we know who is there : we will certainly save him and his following,- except his wife: she is of those who lag behind!"

29:33 (Y. Ali) And when Our Messengers came to Lut, he was grieved on their account, and felt himself powerless (to protect) them: but they said: "Fear thou not, nor grieve: we are (here) to save thee and thy following, except thy wife: she is of those who lag behind.

H.LUT[AS] did all he cud to stop GAYS [closed the door/ pleaded them/ gave even his daughters ] but he grew helpless

29:34 (Y. Ali) "For we are going to bring down on the people of this township a Punishment from heaven, because they have been wickedly rebellious."

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ALLAH [SWT] WARNED PEOPLE SAYING :

29:35 (Y. Ali) And We have left thereof an evident Sign, for any people who (care to) understand.


AND REGARDING BEING BORN AS GAY IS NATURAL IS UTTER NONSENSE BCOZ U KNOW Y

ALLAH[SWT] NEVER COMMITS A SINGLE MISTAKE, IF HE CHOOSES U TO BECOME A MAN U BECOME A MAN, IF HE CHOOSES U TO BECOME WOMAN U BECOME A WOMAN

so coming here an uttering BS will not help u bcoz our creator is ALLAH[SWT] , the one who is almighty, the one who is above alllllllllllllllllllll and the one who never commits even a single mistake

HIS COMMAND IS "be" and it is

HE IS THE ONE WHO CREATED 2 GENDERS "MALE" AND FEMALE" and not 3


this GAYISM is started by u people and not allah[swt] bcoz he never commits MISTAKES


hope i cleared ur foolish doubt regarding H.LUT[AS] and GAYISM

I am very familiar with the story of Prophet Lut, and nothing you said contradicts my points! Thanks for further proving my position, brother.

Kid, you seem to not understand how logic works. I'll walk you through slowly. Firstly, you have not provided specific use of homosexuality being a sin, but sodomy. Second, you made the claim that Allah does not make any mistakes, there are genetic links to homosexuality, and if you are bright enough to ask the question of how homosexuals continue to be, I suggest you read up on the "horny sister" and "hiding in the closet" hypothesis made by evolutionary psychologists. Having said that, you put the 2 together: homosexuals are born that way and Allah is perfect, they have every right to exist. After all, there isn't any conflict between Islam and science. So, if you want to justify yourself, either find scientific research to back it up, find reasonable doubt, or your arguments are going to based on the assumptions that they are "abominations," which would mean that you are saying Allah does make mistakes. Enjoy Kid.

a1337 wrote:Kid, you seem to not understand how logic works. I'll walk you through slowly. Firstly, you have not provided specific use of homosexuality being a sin, but sodomy. Second, you made the claim that Allah does not make any mistakes, there are genetic links to homosexuality, and if you are bright enough to ask the question of how homosexuals continue to be, I suggest you read up on the "horny sister" and "hiding in the closet" hypothesis made by evolutionary psychologists. Having said that, you put the 2 together: homosexuals are born that way and Allah is perfect, they have every right to exist. After all, there isn't any conflict between Islam and science. So, if you want to justify yourself, either find scientific research to back it up, find reasonable doubt, or your arguments are going to based on the assumptions that they are "abominations," which would mean that you are saying Allah does make mistakes. Enjoy Kid.

We should win an award for patience with this guy.

enzuru wrote:

a1337 wrote:Kid, you seem to not understand how logic works. I'll walk you through slowly. Firstly, you have not provided specific use of homosexuality being a sin, but sodomy. Second, you made the claim that Allah does not make any mistakes, there are genetic links to homosexuality, and if you are bright enough to ask the question of how homosexuals continue to be, I suggest you read up on the "horny sister" and "hiding in the closet" hypothesis made by evolutionary psychologists. Having said that, you put the 2 together: homosexuals are born that way and Allah is perfect, they have every right to exist. After all, there isn't any conflict between Islam and science. So, if you want to justify yourself, either find scientific research to back it up, find reasonable doubt, or your arguments are going to based on the assumptions that they are "abominations," which would mean that you are saying Allah does make mistakes. Enjoy Kid.

We should win an award for patience with this guy.

maybe it should be the other way around?

Shams

ShamsB wrote:

enzuru wrote:

a1337 wrote:Kid, you seem to not understand how logic works. I'll walk you through slowly. Firstly, you have not provided specific use of homosexuality being a sin, but sodomy. Second, you made the claim that Allah does not make any mistakes, there are genetic links to homosexuality, and if you are bright enough to ask the question of how homosexuals continue to be, I suggest you read up on the "horny sister" and "hiding in the closet" hypothesis made by evolutionary psychologists. Having said that, you put the 2 together: homosexuals are born that way and Allah is perfect, they have every right to exist. After all, there isn't any conflict between Islam and science. So, if you want to justify yourself, either find scientific research to back it up, find reasonable doubt, or your arguments are going to based on the assumptions that they are "abominations," which would mean that you are saying Allah does make mistakes. Enjoy Kid.

We should win an award for patience with this guy.

maybe it should be the other way around?

Shams

I have utter respect for those who have been using their intellect, the Imam's farmans, and the Qur'an and actually listening to our arguments and allowing us to refute back and forth. I have that respect for you, and I'd hope you'd have that respect for me. However, this user I do not feel listens or actually contributes to this discussion.

Shams, I find it perplexing you're getting defensive on behalf of Kid in what I took to be a pseudo-sarcastic comment. This isn't about the difference in opinion but rather Kid's use of rude language and attempt to imply ignorance of any one who disagrees with him. I'm presuming you'd get frustrated if I hypothetically responded to all your posts by saying 'you people are stupid.' You have every right to defend his opinions but not his method.

a1337 wrote:Shams, I find it perplexing you're getting defensive on behalf of Kid in what I took to be a pseudo-sarcastic comment. This isn't about the difference in opinion but rather Kid's use of rude language and attempt to imply ignorance of any one who disagrees with him. I'm presuming you'd get frustrated if I hypothetically responded to all your posts by saying 'you people are stupid.' You have every right to defend his opinions but not his method.

just because his language isn't the queen's english or his method of debate not up to your standards -doesn't mean he doesn't have anything to say - or what he says has no value - by negating him and his opinion you're negating your own argument.

Your statement about winning an award for patience with him was totally unacceptable in my books and is totally against the principles of intellectual humility as prescribed by the faith - and you claim to understand the faith better than he does.

Shams

so you validate his right to use terms like gayness and something to the effect of 'you people are ignorant'

It's quite strange that you're making assumptions that I believe he doesn't have anything to say or that what we says has no value. It seems as if defending my opinion is somehow a form of my 'elitist views'

I didn't even make the statement about winning an award for patience. I suggest you make an attempt to re-read your own responses as you were the first one to respond to it, and I believe you quoted it too.

That statement isn't even half as offensive as the comments HeartbreakKid, so if you want to express intellectual humility at least give the appearance you're objectively against intolerant comments, especially considering I have asked him to stop insulting other cultures on multiple instances.

It is apparent you're going to attempt to rebut this considering you only jumped in on that comment so you could be the bigger man riding on his high horse and it is a bit sad you need that validation. (It's obvious because you're completely ignoring the purpose of the thread and going after syntax without rebutting to the last message that was about homosexuality... you also could have been discreet and sent a private message.)

a1337 wrote:so you validate his right to use terms like gayness and something to the effect of 'you people are ignorant'

It's quite strange that you're making assumptions that I believe he doesn't have anything to say or that what we says has no value. It seems as if defending my opinion is somehow a form of my 'elitist views'

I didn't even make the statement about winning an award for patience. I suggest you make an attempt to re-read your own responses as you were the first one to respond to it, and I believe you quoted it too.

That statement isn't even half as offensive as the comments HeartbreakKid, so if you want to express intellectual humility at least give the appearance you're objectively against intolerant comments, especially considering I have asked him to stop insulting other cultures on multiple instances.

It is apparent you're going to attempt to rebut this considering you only jumped in on that comment so you could be the bigger man riding on his high horse and it is a bit sad you need that validation. (It's obvious because you're completely ignoring the purpose of the thread and going after syntax without rebutting to the last message that was about homosexuality... you also could have been discreet and sent a private message.)

If you look above..i posted the quote - you were demeaning him.

ShamsB wrote:

enzuru wrote:

a1337 wrote:Kid, you seem to not understand how logic works. I'll walk you through slowly. Firstly, you have not provided specific use of homosexuality being a sin, but sodomy. Second, you made the claim that Allah does not make any mistakes, there are genetic links to homosexuality, and if you are bright enough to ask the question of how homosexuals continue to be, I suggest you read up on the "horny sister" and "hiding in the closet" hypothesis made by evolutionary psychologists. Having said that, you put the 2 together: homosexuals are born that way and Allah is perfect, they have every right to exist. After all, there isn't any conflict between Islam and science. So, if you want to justify yourself, either find scientific research to back it up, find reasonable doubt, or your arguments are going to based on the assumptions that they are "abominations," which would mean that you are saying Allah does make mistakes. Enjoy Kid.

We should win an award for patience with this guy.

maybe it should be the other way around?

Shams

Ok, there's your post... let's walk through this shall we. First sentence, if you've followed the debate with Kid and myself you'd realize Kid was not debating the points I was making. I walk him through the points I'm making straight up. And then I tell him the debate isn't going any where if he repeats the same point over and over again and doesn't bother arguing over other points made. I then provided valid ways to continue debating this topic. And then, Enzuru made a comment about getting an award for patience with a wink emotion. So, unless one lives under a rock for 30 something years it is clearly a joke and just implies that she understands why I had to make that post.

Then you show up and ride in on your high horse trying to turn me into a heartless elitist. It's great you want to defend the underdog in this debate, but news flash, Enzuru and I are the underdogs in this debate, it seems as if the person who's truly posting demeaning things is you. If you'd like I can send you some links for online etiquette.

In my openion it is not normal to have sexual intercours, attraction or intimacy with the same sex. God created opposits, good and bad, day and night, male and female and etc... That's normal and that's nature's law

Like you said, being gay is genitic. It's like any type of genitic sickness. So, if I put your believe in other words, being gay is just another type of genitic sickness which needs to be threated and requires professional help.

Homosexuality isn't a disease, after research it isn't even defined as a mental illness. And that statement about homosexuality being a genetic disease is a very scary thing to say. That definition being used on people other than arians was the reason behind the Holocaust. I'm not accusing you of holding any resentment towards homosexuals, statements like that are just a bit frightening when people act on them.

That being said, genetic illnesses are genes that cause certain bodily functions to fail, if it doesn't cause harm and can properly allow the being to be able to reproduce it becomes a gene that natural selection determines whether those genes die out or cause an evolution of a new species. If you have the chance, watch the film Gattaca, it's a dystopia movie that was made when genetic mapping was becoming mainstream, it's really interesting.

yeh right !!!

just bcoz a GAY thinks that GAYISM is not a disease so its not a disease ,ryte !!!

my brother first of all u show us just one aayat from the holy quran stating GAYISM and GAYS like u r not condemned and cursed and then only u come here with the same BS saying ohhhhh god is not pinpointing GAYS , its just a story !!

my dear fren the whole quran is said in the form of story


7:101 Such were the towns whose STORY We (thus) relate unto thee: There came indeed to them their apostles with clear (signs): But they would not believe what they had rejected before. Thus doth Allah seal up the hearts of those who reject faith.


ur story is no different than those whose heart is sealed by allah[swt], the problem here is allah[swt] not only sealed ur heart but also ur MANHOOD

instead of showing us verse from the book of god i.e QURAN E PAAK ur busy manipulating the words of god and then u act GAYISHLY saying ohhh noo !!! GAYISM is not a disease

we need proof from quran to support ur statement, if u have anything to prove from quran e sharif ur most welcome.

Kid,

I have asked you repeatedly to try to be civil, which includes calling people names with a negative connotation. Your views on homosexuality are clear, so it is obvious you're trying insult me by calling me 'gay.' First things first, if you want to have this debate at least use the correct terminology; homosexual and homosexuality. I ask you use the correct terms because it is offensive especially in the context you apply it in and second, none of us here have the right to judge another person on any level, that is for Allah to do. I'm also inferring that you calling 'gay' is also your way of trying to dismiss my arguments because I'd have something to gain out of homosexuality being allowed, and I am a heterosexual by the way and I don't know any homosexuals in the Ismaili jamat. If you want to have a rational argument by all means respond, however, if you are going to try to get your point across by ofensive remarks and insisting arguments are 'BS,' (just because you express something in an acronym in no way frees you of swearing, which is also quite rude and immature for a discussion amongst adults (assuming you are an adult),) without solid argument, I suggest you take your arguments to another forum.

I'm not making up statements about homosexuality, so it isn't me stating homosexuality isn't a disease, it's medical science. America has some of the best doctors so you can easily follow up on it if you doubt me. I also never said any of the individual aayats are stories, my argument has been predicated on reasonable doubt because the Quran is only as powerful as the person who's reading it.

So tell me, in what way have I been manipulating the words of God? I haven't posted Quranic aayats or used them in my argument because they are subjective to the person who reads them.

The Quran is not a scientific text or a medical encyclopedia. And I have been arguing from a scientific perspective because the validity of my statements isn't based purely on what I think but on what others have thought, experimented and proven. That does not mean I am looking down on the Quran in any way, on the contrary, I love and respect it, which is why I'm not vainly using it to support prejudices and preconceived notions.

To repeat my initial point, stop harassing me in your posts. You know nothing about me outside what I've posted on this site, and that's too little information to base anything on. So petty insults are becoming both offensive and annoying, and it is getting difficult to turn the other cheek rather than sinking down to your level with an equally offensive retort but I restrain myself and I ask you do the same.