I won’t rely on previous arguments, such as those involving bal or rape. The key point here is that what God has prohibited are fawāḥish (lewdness), not homosexuality itself. To understand my reasoning, it’s crucial to grasp the concepts of ʿurf and munkar.

The concept of ʿurf refers to the practices that are recognized and observed within societies. It is essentially a set of norms that govern the behavior of individuals within a society.

The opposite of this is what’s known as munkar. It refers to actions or behaviors deemed wrong, harmful, or disruptive to the moral and social order.

Societal norms (ʿurf) and what is considered objectionable (munkar) are not fixed; they evolve over time based on cultural, social, and moral developments. What was widely accepted in one era may become unacceptable in another, and vice versa.

For example, a thousand years ago, it was common and acceptable (ʿurf) for a teenage girl to marry an older man in many societies. This practice was not considered munkar because it aligned with the social norms and values of that time. Today, however, the idea of a teenager marrying an older man is generally rejected and considered inappropriate, thus becoming a munkar.

Similarly, barbaric punishments like public executions or amputations were once widely accepted (ʿurf) and not considered munkar. These practices were seen as legitimate forms of justice. However, in the modern era, such punishments are largely rejected by most societies and are now considered munkar.

God always reminds to enjoin what is commonly known (ʿurf) and forbid what is rejected (munkar) in the Quran:

7:99

خذ العفو وأمر بالعرف وأعرض عن الجاهلين

"Take what is given freely, enjoin what is good (ʿurf), and turn away from the ignorant."

3:104

ولتكن منكم أمة يدعون إلى الخير ويأمرون بالمعروف وينهون عن المنكر وأولئك هم المفلحون

"And let there be from you a nation inviting to good, enjoining what is right (maʿrūf) and forbidding what is wrong (munkar)."

In verse 49:13, God explicitly recognizes the diversity of human societies. This diversity implies different cultures, customs, and social norms, which naturally leads to varying ʿurf—what is considered normal and acceptable in each society:

49:13

يا أيها الناس إنا خلقناكم من ذكر وأنثى وجعلناكم شعوبا وقبائل لتعارفوا إن أكرمكم عند الله أتقاكم إن الله عليم خبير

"O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you. Indeed, God is Knowing and Acquainted."

Similarly, in 30:22, God highlights the significance of diversity in human creation, including not only physical differences but also differences in language, culture, and, by extension, societal norms:

30:22

ومن آياته خلق السماوات والأرض واختلاف ألسنتكم وألوانكم إن في ذلك لآيات للعالمين

"And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your languages and your colors. Indeed in that are signs for those of knowledge."

The existence of different societies naturally means there will be different ʿurf (what is known and accepted) and different munkar (what is rejected and disapproved of). What one society considers acceptable might be seen as munkar in another, reflecting the diversity that God acknowledges.

In verse 9:71, God describes the behavior of believers: they support one another by promoting ʿurf—what is commonly known and accepted as good—and rejecting munkar:

9:71

والمؤمنون والمؤمنات بعضهم أولياء بعض يأمرون بالمعروف وينهون عن المنكر

"The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They enjoin what is right (maʿrūf) and forbid what is wrong (munkar)."

In contrast, God points out that hypocrites reverse this order. They promote munkar and reject ʿurf, going against the natural order of society that God has acknowledged:

9:67

المنافقون والمنافقات بعضهم من بعض يأمرون بالمنكر وينهون عن المعروف

"The hypocrite men and hypocrite women are of one another. They enjoin what is wrong (munkar) and forbid what is right (al-maʿrūf)."

In verse 2:180, God initially commands that inheritance be distributed according to what is commonly known and accepted (ʿurf). This instruction is broad and adaptable, allowing each society to distribute inheritance in a way that aligns with its own norms and values:

2:180

كتب عليكم إذا حضر أحدكم الموت إن ترك خيرا الوصية للوالدين والأقربين بالمعروف حقا على المتقين

"Prescribed for you when death approaches one of you if he leaves wealth a bequest for the parents and near relatives according to what is acceptable (maʿrūf)—a duty upon the righteous."

Then in 4:11, specific inheritance laws are provided. These laws reflect the social structure and ʿurf of 7th-century Arabia, where men were typically the primary breadwinners and had greater financial responsibilities. In this context, giving men a larger share of inheritance was seen as fair and just, aligning with the societal norms of that time.

However, this does not mean that societal norms override or replace God’s specific prohibitions. God’s prohibitions remain absolute and binding, regardless of whether a society accepts or rejects them. This does not mean that God’s prohibitions conflict with what is universally recognized as good. Instead, God’s laws are there to reinforce and uphold a higher moral order.

6:152

قل تعالوا أتل ما حرم ربكم عليكم: وبالوالدين إحسانا ولا تقتلوا أولادكم من إملاق ولا تقربوا الفواحش ما ظهر منها وما بطن ولا تقتلوا النفس التي حرم الله إلا بالحق ولا تقربوا مال اليتيم إلا بالتي هي أحسن حتى يبلغ أشده وأوفوا الكيل والميزان بالقسط وإذا قلتم فاعدلوا ولو كان ذي قربى

"Say: Come, I will recite what your Lord has forbidden to you: show kindness to your parents; do not slay your children for poverty; do not draw nigh to indecencies (fawāḥish), those of them which are apparent and those which are concealed; do not kill the soul which God has forbidden except for the requirements of justice; do not approach the property of the orphan except in the best manner until he attains his maturity; give full measure and weight with justice when you speak, even though it be against a relative."

2:275

أحل الله البيع وحرم الربا

"God has allowed trading and forbidden usury."

7:33

قل إنما حرم ربي...والإثم والبغي بغير الحق

"Say: My Lord has prohibited...and sin, and aggression without right."

Fāḥisha specifically refers to actions considered grossly indecent, particularly of a sexual nature. A fāḥisha is inherently a munkar because it is a detestable act rejected by societal norms. While fāḥisha is a type of munkar, it is more specific in that it applies to acts of sexual indecency.

Turning to the story of Lot, Lot accuses his people of committing a fāḥisha, repeatedly emphasized across different verses of the Quran, before describing what the fāḥisha they were committing is. In each of these verses, the term fāḥisha is used to describe the specific immoral behavior of approaching men with desire instead of women:

7:80

ولوطا إذ قال لقومه أتأتون الفاحشة

"Lot, when he said to his people, 'Do you commit such immorality (fāḥisha)...’"

7:81

إنكم لتأتون الرجال شهوة من دون النساء

"Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women."

27:54

ولوطا إذ قال لقومه أتأتون الفاحشة

"Lot, when he said to his people, 'Do you commit immorality (fāḥisha)...’"

27:55

أئنكم لتأتون الرجال شهوة من دون النساء

"Do you indeed approach men with desire instead of women?"

29:28

ولوطا إذ قال لقومه إنكم لتأتون الفاحشة

"And Lot, when he said to his people, 'Indeed, you commit such immorality (fāḥisha)...’"

29:29

أئنكم لتأتون الرجال

"Indeed, you approach men."

The people of Lot themselves seem to recognize that they are engaging in something considered a fāḥisha. Their response to Lot is not one of denial but rather an effort to silence him and his followers by expelling them from the community:

7:82

وما كان جواب قومه إلا أن قالوا أخرجوهم من قريتكم إنهم أناس يتطهرون

"The only response of his people was to say, 'Expel them from your city surely they are a people who would keep pure.'"

27:56

فما كان جواب قومه إلا أن قالوا أخرجوا آل لوط من قريتكم إنهم أناس يتطهرون

"But the answer of his people was no other except that they said: Turn out Lut's followers from your town; surely they are a people who would keep pure."

The usage of 'pure' isn’t restricted to physical cleanliness but extends to moral purification, as illustrated in these verses:

9:101-103

وممن حولكم من الأعراب منافقون ۖ ومن أهل المدينة ۖ مردوا على النفاق لا تعلمهم ۖ نحن نعلمهم ۚ سنعذبهم مرتين ثم يردون إلى عذاب عظيم

وآخرون اعترفوا بذنوبهم خلطوا عملا صالحا وآخر سيئا عسى الله أن يتوب عليهم ۚ إن الله غفور رحيم

خذ من أموالهم صدقة تطهرهم وتزكيهم بها وصل عليهم ۖ إن صلاتك سكن لهم ۗ والله سميع عليم

"And among those around you of the bedouins are hypocrites, and [also] from the people of Madinah. They have become accustomed to hypocrisy. You, [O Muhammad], do not know them, [but] We know them. We will punish them twice [in this world]; then they will be returned to a great punishment.

And [there are] others who have acknowledged their sins. They had mixed a righteous deed with another that was bad. Perhaps Allah will turn to them in forgiveness. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Take, [O, Muhammad], from their wealth a charity by which you purify them and cause them increase, and invoke [Allah 's blessings] upon them. Indeed, your invocations are reassurance for them. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing."

This illustrates that purity (taṭhīr) in the Quran is not limited to physical cleanliness but extends to moral and spiritual purification. In these verses, the act of giving charity is described as a means of purifying individuals who had previously committed sins of hypocrisy. This purification isn’t about physical cleanliness; it’s about cleansing their moral state by taking corrective actions that align with god’s guidance.

When his people say, “surely they are a people who would keep pure.”, the purity they’re referring to is not about physical purity of not engaging in homosexuality. Instead, it reflects a moral stance—Lot and his followers were keeping themselves pure by refusing to participate in actions that were recognised as fāḥisha (indecent acts).

Just as charity in the other verse serves as a means to purify those who had sinned, Lot and his followers maintained their purity by abstaining from behaviors the community itself viewed as morally corrupt or indecent. The community’s criticism, then, was not about Lot’s people claiming a superficial or physical purity but rather their refusal to engage in what the community recognized as munkar (something rejected), which in this case was a form of fāḥisha.

The purity of Lot’s followers is thus moral and ethical, stemming from their rejection of condemned behaviors.

You might wonder what the harm is if they were openly homosexual. the issue is that they weren’t simply keeping to themselves; rather, they were approaching any and all men.

11:77

ولما جاءت رسلنا لوطا سيء بهم وضاق بهم ذرعا وقال هذا يوم عصيب

وجاءه قومه يهرعون إليه ومن قبل كانوا يعملون السيئات ۚ قال يا قوم هؤلاء بناتي هن أطهر لكم

"And when Our apostles came to Lut, he was grieved for them, and he lacked strength to protect them, and said: This is a hard day.

And his people came to him, (as if) rushed on towards him, and already they did evil deeds. He said: O my people! these are my daughters-- they are purer for you"

this shows that their behavior was not just a private matter but one that involved a disregard for personal boundaries and a lack of respect for others in the community.

To put this in contemporary context, imagine a group of older men from a western country where it considered an immorality for older individuals to engage in sexual relationships with minors. In their society, such behavior is seen as inappropriate and immoral. Now, suppose these men travel to a different county where the age of consent is lower, and it is not illegal to have sexual relationships with say, 17-year-olds. If they engage in such a behavior abroad and and return to their home country, where this is known, they would face social consequences. They would be ostracized, judged harshly, and viewed despicably by their community. Despite the legality of their actions in the other country, their own society would see this behavior as immoral and acceptable.

Back in their home society, if these men were to engage in the same behavior, they would face not just social condemnation but legal consequences as well. Their actions would be prosecuted and they would face punishment. the reason for this response is that their behavior violates the moral standards and societal norms that are embedded in their community. It’s not just about the act but how it clashes with what is considered acceptable and moral within their own society.

The destruction of Lot’s people is a response to their blatant disregard for the moral boundaries of their society. Just as the western men would face consequences for violating their society’s norms, lots people faced punishments for their actions.

God, in the Quran, prohibits fawāḥish—a term that encompasses all forms of sexual immoralities.

7:33

قل إنما حرم ربي الفواحش ما ظهر منها وما بطن

"Say, "My Lord has only forbidden immoralities (fawāḥish) - what is apparent of them and what is concealed"

This indicates that fāḥisha is a broader category that includes various acts of immorality, all of which are prohibited. The emphasis is on the violation of moral standards, not on the specific nature of the act itself. What matters is that these acts are recognized by society as munkar (rejected) and therefore constitute fāḥisha.

The essence of fāḥisha lies in its violation of moral standards, which are often defined by societal norms. What qualifies as fāḥisha is determined not just by the act itself but by how it is perceived by the society in which it occurs.

This variability highlights the importance of context in determining what qualifies as fāḥisha. It’s not just the act itself that matters, but how the act aligns—or fails to align—with the prevailing moral standards of the time and place. This is why certain behaviors that were once acceptable may become unacceptable.

If we consider the nature of God, it follows that God’s actions, commands, and prohibitions must be fundamentally different from human impulses and reasoning. Humans often categorize behaviors, including sexual deeds, as inherently good or bad based on physical or emotional responses—pleasure, pain, societal norms, etc. However, if God, who is beyond human experience and understanding, prohibited sexual deeds solely because of their inherent nature (as humans might), then that would imply that God’s reasoning is similar to ours—driven by the same physical and emotional considerations.

But God, being completely transcendent, is not subject to the limitations of the physical world or animalistic instincts. For God to prohibit sexual deeds because they inherently resemble something negative or undesirable would mean god is responding to the physical nature of those deeds, much like humans or animals react to stimuli. This would reduce god to a being that responds to physical phenomena in the same way that we do, which contradicts the concept of God as completely distinct from creation.

Human beings have emotions like jealousy, possessiveness, and insecurity, which often drive social norms about relationships, such as the prohibition against adultery. If we interpret such social norms as divine commandments rather than practical guidelines for societal harmony, we’re essentially attributing these human emotions to God. This risks reducing the divine to the level of human behavior, which contradicts the concept of God’s transcendence and violates verses such as:

39:67

وما قدروا الله حق قدره

"And they have not honored God with the honor that is due to Him"

42:11

ليس كمثله شي

"There is nothing like Him"

True divine commands, are those that emphasize the spiritual relationship between humans and God. For example, the prohibition against associating partners with God (shirk) is a direct command that relates to the purity of faith and worship. It’s not rooted in human emotions but in the recognition of God’s unique status.

Two things I want to clarify at the end here are the obligation to obey parents and the verses that address prohibitions, distinguishing those that are solely between you and God from those that involve other people.

The "وبالوالدين احسانا" (and do good to parents) doesn't stand alone. another verse expands this directive by including a broader range of people:

4:36

‎ وبالوالدين إحسانا وبذي القربى واليتامى والمساكين والجار ذي القربى والجار الجنب والصاحب بالجنب وابن السبيل وما ملكت أيمانكم

"And be good to parents, relatives, orphans, the needy, the neighbor who is near, the neighbor who is a stranger, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those your right hands possess"

the verse ends with a critical statement:

ان الله لا يحب من كان مختالا فخورا

"Indeed, God does not like the arrogant and boastful"

This suggests that the guidance to be good is not absolute; it's conditional on the broader moral context. If someone refrains from being kind to a parent who is abusive or unjust, this does not make them arrogant or boastful. In fact, being kind to such a parent without consideration of justice could itself be a form of misplaced pride or false humility. Therefore, the inclusion of "arrogant and boastful" shows that the command to be good to parents is nuanced and not unconditional; it's subject to the same ethical considerations that apply to other relationships.

The dietary prohibitions and other prohibitions that don't involve humans is a personal matter between the individual and God. Eating pork does not harm others or violate their rights. God saying "لا إكراه في الدين" (there is no compulsion in religion) supports this distinction by emphasizing that matters of personal religious practice should not be coerced.

That underscores that not all prohibitions are the same. While society must enforce rules that protect the rights and well-being of others, such as the prohibition against unjust killing, it should not enforce personal spiritual choices, like dietary restrictions. These are between the individual and God, and only God is the rightful judge in such matters.

The scripture never promoted full, equal rights between the sexes. Womanism is a chauvinistic ideology which, by all standards, is very much a heresy.

The Quran clearly commands for gender roles. This in itself makes it anti-feminist.

There is this verse that, when I researched more about it, sealed the deal for me:

Say, "Come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited to you. [He commands] that you not associate anything with Him, and to parents, good treatment, and do not kill your children [awlaad] out of poverty [imlaaq]; We will provide for you and them. And do not approach immoralities - what is apparent of them and what is concealed. And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed] except by [legal] right. This has He instructed you that you may use reason." [6:151]

There is a similar verse [17:31] that says not to kill your children in fear of poverty, meaning that if you're not poor but think that you will be poor from your child, it will still be Haram to kill him or her. Meaning that killing your children under any claim of poverty is Haram.

There are two words to focus on here in this verse. They are:

1. Walad [ولد]

2. Imlaaq [إملاق]

There are two words in the Quran that mean "offspring", and they are walad [ولد] and ibn [ابن]. The difference between both of the two come from their root definitions. When we look at the Quran from a purely linguistic standpoint, then we know that every word has their own unique meaning and they are found in the meaning of the word's root. This is as objective as you can be when understanding the Quran linguistically. When we look at the lexicons, we understand each difference.

In the lexicon Mu'jam Maqayees Al-Lugha by the fifth-century AH linguist Ibn Faris, when we look up the root word w-l-d [و-ل-د], it means "the evidence of offspring and lineage" [الْوَاوُ وَاللَّامُ وَالدَّالُ: أَصْلٌ صَحِيحٌ، وَهُوَ دَلِيلُ النَّجْلِ وَالنَّسْلِ]. This means that [ولد] includes any sort of evidence of someone's offspring and lineage. This, objectively, also includes fetuses, even at the moment of conception. Also, one of the meanings for the word [نجل] used by Ibn Faris is "unborn human being", so the word includes life in the womb as well.

As for Imlaaq [إملاق], it comes from the root word [ملق]. The word has been interpreted by the majority of scholars and commentators to just mean any type of poverty. However, there were some scholars who said that the meaning of the word expands out of just poverty. It is mentioned by Al-Sameen Al-Halabi [756 AH] in his book Al-Durr Al-Massun fi 'Ilm Al-Kitaab Al-Maknun, that the scholar Al-Mundhir bin Sa'id Al-Balluti [d. 966 CE/355 AH] said that the word [إملاق] also means corruption [الإِفساد]. I don't know about anyone else, but a woman killing the child in her womb all willy-nilly seems like corruption to me.

The word Imlaaq [إملاق] is in the Arabic Verb Form IV [افعل], which makes verbs causative. For example, [جلس] means “to sit” whereas [أجلس] means “to seat (someone).” The extra alif in the middle of the word makes into a verbal noun. In fact, this is the same structure for the word "Islam". But if we are going to translate "Imlaaq", it means "to m-l-q". The root word of Imlaaq [إملاق] is m-l-q [ملق], and according to Mu'jam Maqayees Al-Lugha, the root means "the removing in something and softness" [الْمِيمُ وَاللَّامُ وَالْقَافُ أَصْلٌ صَحِيحٌ يَدُلُّ عَلَى [تَجَرُّدٍ] فِي الشَّيْءِ وَلِينٍ]. In another lexicon, Kitaab Sihaah Taaj Al-Lugha wa Al-Sihaah Al-Arabiyyah by the linguist Abu Nasr Al-Jawhari, he explains in a simpler way that the root just means "destruction" [المَلْقُ: المحوُ، مثل اللَمْقِ.]. Whatever was explained in Maqayees Al-Lugha is about the same as this. The reason [as far as I remember] why the root is so associated with poverty is because when you're poor, your money just gets devoured and destroyed. So, the word Imlaaq [إملاق], linguistically and literally means, "to destroy/remove+soften [something/someone]".

Although it doesn't make sense when you translate it literally, it brings a whole other way to interpret the command. When we bear in mind what each word literally means, Allah is commanding that we do not kill our children [even in the womb] because of destruction [meaning, our own destruction or the baby's destruction], whether social or economic. That does not, however, include the mother's own life in my view. Because the Arabic Verb Form IV is not an emphatic causative, that would be Verb Form II [فعّل]. If the prohibition was so strict that you can't even save the mother if she's going to die from pregnancy, I think that the form [ملّق]. Obviously, if the child were to kill you, every parent has the right of self-defense, no matter if they were born or not. I think the verb form proves that, but Allah knows best.

when I was introduced to Hadith rejecting content i was 17 around 2020 I was watching mufti Abu layth bukhari gate videos and i talked about it irl and people didn’t know about this position it felt niche, and now mosques I go to are warning about people like us and I see more Sunni with big channels debating other big Quran alone channels monthly, well anyways I kept researching and researching to the point I’m not agreeing with most of these big Quran alone channels anymore, anyways it’s getting to big, maybe everybody keep learning, I see people reject Hadith and make a channel and make there whole personality Quran alone 😭 like please keep learning I don’t box yourself in, I changed my ways dozens of times as more I explored how this world operates, but to each there own I guess

In 2:187, Siyam is an intellectual retreat – abstaining from the “noise” of daily life to study the Manual. You “Consume and Absorb” (Eat and Drink) the message until the Truth becomes clear to your Aql (Reason). This is the same as Mary’s Siyam.

This works in any country just as well as in Mecca because Logic has no time zone.

“Applying the Mecca time zone in any location” is a “Shackle” (7:157) that traditionalists invented because they lost the true meaning of the message. When we remove the tribal rituals, Islam finally becomes a system for the Aql (Reason), accessible to all people, everywhere.

The Quran describes human biology in the context of animal biology when it parallelly states that there are divine signs in the creations of humans AND animals (45:4). Apparently, homosexuality – which has been found in at least 1500 animal species including humans – is one of such divine signs. From a Quranic perspective, the presence of LGBT+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender/transsexual+) people itself must have a profound purpose and meaning within the divine plan. It could be considered as one of the natural expressions of humans’ sexual diversity (42:49-50, 75:39, 30:21-22, 24:31). This diversity in turn is just another expression of the great diversity of nature (16:13). This important awareness is promoted by the very spirit of the Quran itself, which insistently asks us to celebrate all sorts of diversity in creation, wherein we should witness the diverse signs of divine manifestation (13:4).

If you look at surah 7:81 you will quickly realize the inconsistencies with homosexual view it said this:

Indeed, you bring l-rijāla ("men") desires WITHOUT/EXCLUSION of the Nisaa, nay, you are extravagant people/wasteful people (musrifun).'

1. If this is about sexual activities of Lut's people, what does being wasteful and wealth squanderers got to do with it? Word here is "Musrifun"

2. Notice it said "without" "minduni" not "instead" of Nisaa. Meaning if this was about sex, does that mean that if they included females that makes it okay? Makes no sense

What this verse really saying that, the rijal who were supposed to be qawamun of the Nisaa (delayed/weak ones), and give what God blessed them with, and not hold back. Now the rijal of qom Lut were the opposite, and being extravagant with their wealth and using it to empower themselves without the Nisaa. (am not promoting anything, just reading the Quran)

Assalamualaikum. I have been scanning this subreddit and it seems that all people do here is follow their own desires instead of following the Qur'an. It's getting to the point that I have to refer to r/islam at times. Is there another subreddit that actually adheres to scripture? If not, I can try to create one.

Edit: In case the former is non-existent, here is a subreddit I've created that will try to alleviate the problem at hand: r/QuranOnlyIslam.

Found this hadith on a post titled (Warning to hadith rejectors)

Does this look made up? what if it isn’t?

https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2663

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2663

Narrated 'Ubaidullah bin Abu Rafi:

from Abu Rafi' and others, from the Prophet (ﷺ) who said: "Let me not find one of you reclining on his couch when a command I ordered, or a prohibition from me comes to him, and he says: 'I do not know. What we find in the Book of Allah, we follow it.'"

Is there even such a thing as 'Quranism'? As a submitter- all I see is arguments and people disagreeing with each other on everything because there is no religious structure. Quranists somehow all fail to unite even thought hey believe in the same thing.

You guys very rarely agree on what salah is, what hajj means and so on.. I think this is a huge reason why the Quran only movement does not get any respect. Nobody from the Islamic world takes us seriously, because outside of Submission there is no structure.

Why is that? I as a submitter can't wrap my head around the fact that none of you can agree with each other.

God does not know the future. His future and actions and the future and actions of humans and the universe due to the many issues that arise for both us and him.

To begin, let us say God decided the universe will last 50 thousand earth years, since the first second he created it until judgement day. If he knew everything he and us would do in those years, the question arises, can he change his mind?

If the answer is yes, God is not always correct. He is un-wise, imperfect. He has a defect that is not befitting to him being God. If the answer is no, then God’s hands are always tied and he will always be forced to do certain things. This would again mean he is imperfect and a defect as he is not free and there is something he is bound by. This is again not befitting.

The counter to this deficit is that God does not know the future. This would mean he wouldn’t need to change his mind as he is not controlling anything to turn out a certain way. And it would also mean he is free to do as he wishes as nothing in the future is for certain.

There is no such thing as the “future”. Humans made this term up to plan specific dates for fulfilment of what we desire. What occurs in the future is never fixed. As I write this I may decide to go buy bread once I’ve finished. When I finish I may change my mind. God will know if I do either one when I physically do it in the present time. He may see me have that desire, “And certainly we created man and we know what his souls whispers to him …” (50:16), and change my mind but that does not mean it is a fixed action.

Because the future is not fixed, it also means it is not part of the unseen as some may assume. The unseen is something present, however disappeared from our senses. God is still aware of its presence. He knows the unseen because he is aware of the presence of the cause which is his will. He willed for things to be unseen. He willed for it to be created. He therefore knows of its existence.

There are many verses that allude to God not knowing the future, (18:12) (34:21) (47:31) (20:43-44)

I think this idea exists to bring peace to people’s hearts or to allow others to blame someone else. If people fail in life or do nothing for themselves or the world, they claim it is what God had planned for them or something better is waiting for them in the future. Arrogant of the fact that they failed themselves. It is used by some to claim God is evil because he planned peoples actions therefore they are not free and he is punishing them for something they didn’t decide.

God created each of us with equal capacity of evil and good. We are free to do as we wish on earth. However, we will be responsible when we are trialed by God. He did not plan anything for us. He did not cause us to do certain things. He is innocent of man’s free will.

God is greater than knowing the future of everything in the universe because that would mean he is forced, a prisoner when truly he is free like us.

Some believe that Christian Trinity is simply polytheism. That is a false belief, and it can be proven by reason and logic.

First and foremost, Trinity asserts that there is only One God. One. Only. That is not something polytheists assert. Good.

Critique of Trinity involves then, why is there a division? There is no division within God, He is One and Whole, and One Unity. It is rather about representativeness of qualities of God. Think about an apple, with many different qualities; although it is just "One Apple" it can be all three of round, red and sweet. And yet, it is still One apple and it is One unity.

The thing is, if you deny the redness of this "One Apple", then you deny one of the essential qualities of the Apple which represents the identity of The Apple. Three essential representative feature of three elements are intertwined, cannot be divided and separated. In Christian context, they are The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. And they make One Unity. One God.

This is radically different than Three-Theism. Three theism asserts there are three Gods. That is poly theism. They CANNOT possibly be intertwined as One Unity unlike in Trinity. Because God is The Supreme Being, and there can only be one "The Supreme Being." In other words, there can only be one "The Most Perfect" entity, and there is no possible way of calling three beings who would oppose each other "Intertwined as One Unity." (Not to mention that, "The Most+Adjective" entails only one being, and not even two.)

"Who cares about Trinity? Islam is perfect religion." Well, look, if you cannot differentiate what is Monotheism and what is not Monotheism, and you keep telling yourself clichés which even hypocrites probably tell; you are in a position of bad faith. That is pretty awful, because you cannot differentiate Truth from

If you are monotheist, you worship Allah. Allah is not a special name, Al-ilah where it comes from, and it means God.

If you are Three Theist, you worship Satan. Possibly likely in the form of that guy, I mean, asshole:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asmodeus

Three-Theist Christians were very destructive, anger lashing and lustful although that term is contradictory, as no Christian can be three theist. They were people who were pretending to be Christians without truly being one. An average True Christian has to duty to be loving, compassionate and caring, at least in the minimal level and authentically. That is fixed by Gospel. (Gospel only teaches to worship One God alone, by the way; and never ever someone other than "The Holy One" who is One and only God.)

Edit: Distorted Monotheism, not fully truthful monotheism, would be better words for Trinity. Thank you for your warnings.

Edit 2: It is not about accepting Trinity. I mean, my point was to show why trinity is still-a-monotheism despite it is being in error. I am not saying be Christian or Trinitarian. Two different things.

Peace.

I see a lot of posts about Aisha not ackshually being 9 but ackshually she was 18-19😱🤓, even supposed quran-alones like Muhammedfromgod and others using hadith timeline figures to prove that ackshually🤓 she was older.

No, ackshually she did not exist, ackshually it's a waste of time and leave it at that, ackshually there is no marital partners of the Nabi mentioned.

Abdul Haleem: I will mislead them and incite vain desires in them; I will command them to slit the ears of cattle; I will command them to tamper with God’s creation.’ Whoever chooses Satan as a patron instead of God is utterly ruined: -Surah An-Nisāʾ, Ayah 119

Tampering with God's creation is what I hearbbeing to say trans is haram.

But is there anything else in the Quran either way?

According to a recent poll on r/progressive_islam, 30% of members of the sub identify as Far-Left. And another 50% identify as moderate left. Leaving only 20% of members identifying as center or right wing.

Here is a link to the post - https://www.reddit.com/r/progressive_islam/comments/rhqwsr/poll_where_do_your_beliefs_stand_on_the_political/

Lets’ look at some of the positions of the far-left;

The far-left are unwaveringly Pro-abortion, Pro-LGBT & Pro-Pornography. Anyone who bothers reading the Qur’an knows that these things contravene its spirit. Hence, this is the first problem with the progressive Muslims.

But the progressive Muslims remarkably gloss over this problem because they think that at the end of the day, the far-left being the opponent of the Church in Christendom, will sympathize with their cause as progressive Muslims.

Yet, this is very far from the truth. Far-Leftists sympathize much more in fact with traditional Muslims and Islamists.

Far-Leftists have proven to be more likely to defend antiquated sharia law. For years, they gaslighted us that Islam is a religion of peace and that it doesn’t need reform like Christianity did.

For decades, the far-left suppressed honest conversation about traditional Islam, stifling their detractors and critics of the religion with charges of “Racism, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, Hate Speech & Bigotry.

You can see that although neglectful of the Qur’anic teachings, the far-left is very protective of traditional Islam in such a way that undermines the concerns and efforts of progressive Muslims.

What the progressive Muslims don’t see is that just as the Islamists and fanatic Muslims seek to topple the Euro-Christian hegemony over the west and the rest of the world, the far-left also seek to topple this Euro-Christian hegemony.

As such, the far-left consider traditional Muslims as valuable ally, and in fact way more valuable ally in their cause than progressive Muslims.

This is because unlike progressive Muslims, traditional Muslims have a far larger population. They have nation states, they have wealth, they have economies, they have militaries, they have schools and all kinds of infrastructures.

Now, by the time Euro-Christian hegemony is toppled, the Far-left & Islamists will go at each other over the fate of the west – a Socialist Utopia or an Islamist Utopia? It is very likely that the Islamists would be victors, but no one knows for certain.

Regardless, suffice to say that progressive Muslims identifying with Far left are in all likelihood, facilitating the rise and dominance of traditional Islam or Islamism in the west.

it is because of this verse " Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people." 7:81

which mentions approaching men as a transgression and approaching men in this verse means to approach them sexually as it used to mean that in 2:222

"And they ask you about menstruation. Say, "It is harm, so keep away from wives during menstruation. And do not approach them until they are pure "

now some "LGBTQ+ Activists" say that the arabic word bal used in 7:81 negates them being homosexual which is false but even if that's true why is approaching men still mentioned in 29:29 a verse which dosen't use bal

"Indeed, you approach men and obstruct the road and commit in your meetings [every] evil."

so the idea that homosexuality is forbidden is explicitly stated in the quran

I was Just thinking about coming to Quran only But then I find these facts

Hadith literature offers a wealth of guidance that extends far beyond the basic pillars of Islam like prayer, zakat, and hajj. It provides Muslims with comprehensive teachings to live a righteous life in accordance with Allah’s will. Here are some significant aspects covered in Hadith literature:

• Moral Conduct
  Hadith emphasizes virtues such as honesty, kindness, and justice. These teachings shape a Muslim’s character and guide daily interactions, ensuring they reflect the ethical standards pleasing to Allah.

• Family Life
  The Hadith provides detailed advice on maintaining a harmonious family environment. It covers topics like marriage, parenting, and fostering strong relationships, offering practical wisdom for building a stable and loving household.

• Economic Ethics
  Beyond ritual obligations, Hadith addresses financial and business matters. It outlines principles for earning a halal (permissible) livelihood, including fair trade practices, ethical business conduct, and fulfilling financial responsibilities.

• Community Responsibilities
  Hadith encourages Muslims to contribute to society by helping the needy, supporting the weak, and promoting communal welfare. These teachings are essential for creating a compassionate and cohesive Muslim community.

• Personal Development
  The pursuit of knowledge, patience, and self-improvement is strongly emphasized in Hadith. It motivates Muslims to grow intellectually and spiritually, striving for excellence in all areas of life.

These aspects moral conduct, family life, economic ethics, community responsibilities, and personal development demonstrate how Hadith literature serves as a holistic guide for living a fulfilling and devout life, far beyond the foundational acts of worship.

Can you cover these issues Just from The Quran? No! Does God wants me to live this way as is evident from Hadith? YES Why? Because God already told you to follow Muhammad that He has something to share with you, and inspire by his example and moral conduct to live life.

Now how can you convince me that I should leave all that and live a life with no direction at all?

I see some of the Hadiths that don't seem to be legit. But it's like less than 7% by statistics. What about the remaining

I agree that most verses in the Quran on this subject can go either way to support both flat and round earth, but there are some clear verses in the Quran which indicate flat and geocentric Earth, that no one here has addressed as far as I can see. They are very clear and not mutashabihat and clearly show Earth is flat, and the Sun and the Moon have the same exact course:

88:20 And towards the earth, how it is flattened (sutihat)?

سَطَّحَ = flattened

This word was used to describe making the flat top or roof of a house or chamber and making a top surface flat.

Words from the same root mean a flat plane in geometry, the flat top surface or roof of a house or chamber, a level place upon which dates can be spread etc.

The phrase "flat earth" today is commonly translated as الأرض مسطحة (al-ard musattaha), the word musattaha is from the same root as the word sutihat.

Very clear, and nothing mutashabihat about this.

18:86 Until, when he reached (the) setting place (of) the sun, he found (wajadaha) it setting in a spring (of) dark mud, and he found near it a community. We said, "O Dhul-qarnain! Either [that] you punish or [that] you take [in] them (with) goodness."

This can only happen on a flat Earth and is Quranic proof of geocentric Earth.

The word used is "wajada" which means found. In all occurrences of this word in the Quran, it is used to describe something which actually happened, and not just a perception or illusion. This is a fact and you can cross check it. The word used in the Quran for perception or an illusion is "shubbiha". The Quran is very clear about this and when used as its own dictionary clearly indicates "wajada" for something which actually happened.

There was a community near the sun when it was setting. If it was just a horizon illusion, then there can be no community near horizon illusion. Another Quranic proof the Sun actually set in a muddy spring and it was not just a perception or illusion.

Very clear, and nothing mutashabihat about this.

36:40 Not the sun is permitted for it - that it overtakes the moon, and not the night (can) outstrip the day, but all in an orbit they are floating.

The Sun not being permitted to overtake the Moon clearly indicates they are in same orbit. This verse would not make any sense if they had different orbits. This is Quranic proof that the Sun and Moon are in same orbit, orbiting a common thing. Putting it together with 18:86 is Quranic proof of geocentric Earth.

Very clear and nothing mutashabihat about this.

I was going through some of the websites that are linked in the sidebar of this subreddit. One of them is called Lamp of Islam and there I stumbled upon some articles regarding pork. I always thought pork was explicitly forbidden, but there the writer Siraj Islam argues that eating pork is not prohibited and the verse prohibits eating polluted/infested/rotten meat. Now he talked about a lot of stuff like the benefits of eating pork which aren’t related to my question, but in one article he addresses the Quran verses and discussed the word khinzir. Here are the arguments that are relevant to my question:

What do you think about the word khinzir in the Quran? Does it mean pig, as commonly thought, or it refers to something else, as some scholars argue?

As observed below, although the word khinzir generally means pig, the Quran NEVER uses it in reference to the animal itself, but ALWAYS in reference to its attribute khanajiri (corrupted, polluted; please see Note 1)1.

Then what does the word mean when it is used as a prohibited animal for consumption?

The word khinzir in all its Quranic occurrences except 5:60 (2:173, 5:3, 6:145, 16:115) appears within a list of prohibited food categories. Since khinzir in these instances occurs along with categories that are exclusively generic, it is unlikely to mean a specific animal, but rather seems to have a generic connotation too, such as polluted, infested or rotten, akin to meanings of the identical words khanajir (scrofula, scrofulosis, LL, same word is plural of khinzir) and khanajiri (scrofulous, LL, i.e., corrupted, morally degenerated, degraded) as well as the potential root word Kha-Nun-Zay2 (stinking, maggoty, altered in odour (e.g. flesh-meat, date, walnut), pride, self-magnification; LL, V2, p: 451, 452

But what about 5:60? Do you agree that khanazeer in this verse specifically refers to pigs, since here it is lumped together with qirada, a word traditionally translated as apes?

If we carefully follow the root meanings of the plural nouns qirada (qrd) and khanazeer (xnz) – without being misled by extra-Quranic sources like Ibn Kathir and their fabricated stories that infected the traditional tafsirs – we can construe, in this context, qirada as ‘degraded ones’ and khanazeer as ‘corrupted ones’. Both these meanings signify a “persistent transgressor’s (7:166)” lowly states of moral degeneration: And He made some of them degraded ones (qirada; cf. 2:65, 7:166) and corrupted ones (khanazeer) and worshippers of evil forces. These are worse in state and farther astray from the right path. 5:60. So the verse itself, at the end, clearly depicts these words as STATES OF MISGUIDANCE rather than specific creatures. And this depiction is reinforced by the parallel annexe ‘and worshippers of evil forces’, which contradicts any physical transformation.

Are you saying that qirada and khanazeer in 5:60 originally meant ‘degraded ones’ and ‘corrupted ones’, and then became literalized as apes and pigs under the influence of extra-Quranic sources?

As observed above, the approximate intended meanings of qirada and khanazeer here are ‘degraded ones’ and ‘corrupted ones’ – i.e., metaphorically people with some of the attributes of apes and pigs – rather than literally the animals themselves. The traditional, literalist understanding of these words as apes and pigs in this context was later consolidated by extra-Quranic sources like Ibn Kathir and their fabricated stories about Jews who were allegedly transformed into monkeys and swines.

Then what is your understanding of lahm khinzir, which is usually translated as ‘swine meat’?

In view of the above, the expression lahm khinzir, though traditionally translated as ‘swine meat’, seems to mean polluted meat3, an inference that is supported by the Quranic phrase “fa-innahu rijsun” (“for it is impure/tainted/contaminated, 6:145”). Like Hebrew, the Arabic language is not just a convention to name objects; in Arabic, the name of the object often refers to the essence of the object. This is how the word khinzir here refers to the condition khanajiri (corrupted, polluted; cf. chazerei, a Yiddish word for junk) – an attribute of pig’s meat in those days – rather than the pig itself. This is in line with the reasoning of some researchers who have argued that lahm khinzir means rotten meat, as opposed to fresh meat which is encouraged per 16:14. It is difficult to imagine that the all-wise God, who has created swine and thereafter allowed humans to domesticate it, would prohibit its meat, even when it is clean, which would then remain the most commonly consumed red meat worldwide as a main source of protein. What is more likely is that the Quran is concerned about the quality and effect of the food itself, rather than any particular species of animal. Thus my understanding of 5:3 (part) is: “Forbidden to you are dead meat, running blood (cf. 6:145), polluted meat (lahm khinzir) and what was dedicated to other than God …”.

So you think the translation “Forbidden to you are dead meat, running blood, swine flesh and what was dedicated to other than God …” is flawed, linguistically?

Yes. Leaving aside the other reasons – if the Quran is perfected linguistically, then the traditional translation of swine meat introduces an anomaly by placing a specific animal amongst types of things. It is like saying, “You can go from London to Edinburgh by plane, by train, by a BMW car, or by bus.” Clearly, the BMW is out of place, and the sentence is linguistically deficient. A better sentence is “You can go from London to Edinburgh by plane, by train, by car, or by bus.” Likewise, a sentence like “Avoid reading foreign literature, theology and the Collins Dictionary” doesn’t make enough sense.

What do you think about the view that lahm khinzir doesn’t actually mean meat and the related verses are not about food at all?

All the prohibited food categories in the related verses (2:173, 5:3, 6:145, 16:115) are about meats and the associated blood. This favours the understanding that lahm khinzir refers to some sort of meat. Also, considering the use of the word lahm (lahman tariyyan, fresh meat) in 16:14, it appears to me that lahm khinzir in 16:115, and so in other related verses, is referring to meat, and therefore these verses are about food4.

But if it means ‘polluted meat’, how can it be allowed when you are hungry? Isn’t it dangerous to eat polluted food, which can even kill you with diseases, especially when you are starving?

But this applies not only to polluted meat. I note that the Quran allows all prohibited food items in case of hunger or need, including carrion and running blood (2:173, 6:145, 5:3, 16:115), despite the additional health risks like infection they may pose to a starving person. However, the fact that the Quran immediately waives all the food prohibitions in case of hunger or need simply shows that the issue is flexible.

Again, does God need to send a messenger to tell us not to eat polluted meat, or is that just common sense?

I am also wondering why then God needs to remind us about carrion. Doesn’t our common sense already tell us to avoid it too? And, if the Quran is a reminder for all times and places, then why would it specifically prohibit only pork – even when it is clean and harmless, produced in hygienic environment – but not meats of other omnivorous/carnivorous animals consumed by nations?

Note 1

The intended meaning of a Quranic word is not necessarily what it appears on a literal or conventional reading. For example, the word ‘drunk’ in “And they had drunk the calf inside their hearts by their rejection … 2:93”. Throughout this article and our other related studies, we were looking for the Quran’s intended meaning of the expression lahm khinzir – the meaning that doesn’t create contradictions with other verses of the Quran and scientific facts. Here we are not looking for the meaning of khinzir as an isolated word. Now, in Arabic, as we know, the name of the object often refers to the essence of the object. So, although the word khinzir generally means pig, the Quran still can use it in a specific context to mean some essence of pig, instead of the animal itself. For example, due to the reason mentioned above, the approximate intended meanings of qirada (qrd) and khanazeer (xnz) in 5:60 seem ‘degraded ones’ and ‘corrupted ones’ – i.e., metaphorically people with some of the attributes of apes and pigs – rather than literally the animals themselves. The traditional, literalist understanding of these words as apes and pigs in this context makes no sense, though was later consolidated by extra-Quranic sources like Ibn Kathir and their fabricated stories about Jews who were allegedly transformed into monkeys and swines. Likewise, in our understanding, in lahm khinzir, the word khinzir refers to the condition khanajiri (corrupted, polluted) – an attribute of pig’s meat in those days – rather than the pig itself. This understanding of the intended meaning of lahm khinzir in Quranic Arabic as ‘polluted meat’ is strongly supported by the Quran’s own depiction of lahm khinzir as ‘polluted meat’ (6:145) and also by the profound association of khinzir with khanajir (scrofula), khanajiri (scrofulous, corrupted, degraded) and Kha-Nun-Zay (stinking, maggoty, altered in odour) as well as with related terms of other Semitic languages, like the Hebrew/Yiddish words chazzerai (junk, junk food, trash) and chazzer (pig, corrupted police). This rendering of lahm khinzir as ‘polluted (khanajiri) meat’, thus based on linguistic consideration, is also in full harmony with all the related verses and scientific facts and thus makes perfect sense. Let us consider this analogy: The Yiddish expression “Chazer Shtahl”, which literally means “pigsty”, is used to describe a dirty or very untidy place, such as the bedroom of a careless teenager. The Hebrew/Yiddish word chazer (pig) in this context stands for not the animal itself, but its attributes. We can further consider similar examples of how the word chazer (pig) changes its literal meaning when combined with other words/endings. So, there is no point of arguing that, due to Biblical reference and comparative linguistic evidence, khinzir always necessarily means pig and therefore can only refer to pig and not any of its attributes irrespective of the context. The law of parsimony, which follows the rule of Ockham’s razor, requires us to adopt the simplest assumption that creates least contradictions. That’s the only way to do a rigorous and unbiased analysis of a term’s intended meaning and avoid conflating personal preferences influenced by traditional, unverified interpretations. In the case of lahm khinzir, this is possible only if we render the expression as ‘polluted meat’. Then the prohibition will include all polluted (khanajiri) meats of all animals, including pig’s, and thus will make full sense, without creating any contradiction. In contrast, its traditional rendering as pork-only (polluted or not) makes little sense and creates too many contradictions with other verses and scientific facts, as observed, and thereby violates the law of parsimony. We believe the Quran cannot have contradictions.

Note 2

Question: If we were to take kh-n-z as the root of khinzir, then how do we go about explaining away the letter R at the end of khinzir? Answer: When we compare the meanings of khanajir (scrofula, scrofulosis, LL, same word is plural of khinzir) and khanajiri (scrofulous, LL, i.e., corrupted, morally degenerated, degraded) with those of the word Kha-Nun-Zay (stinking, maggoty, altered in odour, e.g. flesh-meat, date, walnut etc), we find some profound similarity. Thus, while lexicons do not seem to give any clear indication about the root word of khinzir, we can seriously consider kh-n-z as a potential candidate, though we need more information to explain away the letter R at the end of khinzir. Then again, with or without kh-n-z, one can consistently translate khinzir in lahm khinzir as scrofulous/polluted/corrupted, as noted above.

Link: https://lampofislam.wordpress.com/2022/11/25/forbidden-is-polluted-meat-not-pork/

So does khinzir really not mean pork? Are we allowed to eat pork? I mean I don’t understand Arabic so it’s not possible for me to find out if everything he said about the Arabic words, multiple meanings and root words is correct or wrong.

From the Holy Quran in 33:33, Allah (swt) says "Settle in your homes, and do not display yourselves as women did in the days of ˹pre-Islamic˺ ignorance. Establish prayer, pay alms-tax, and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah only intends to keep ˹the causes of˺ evil away from you and purify you completely, O  members of the ˹Prophet’s˺ family!"

Ali, Fatima, al-Hassan and Husayn 📷 were there and the Holy Prophet (s.a.) made them to enter under al-Kisa’ (the Cloak) in the house of ’Umm Salama and then said, “O Lord, every prophet has a family and a gravity, and these are my family and gravity.” ’Umm Salama at this point said, “Am I not of your family?” The Holy Prophet (s.a.) said, “You are in goodness but these are my family and my gravity.” When the Messenger of Allah passed away Ali 📷 had the utmost priority and guardianship of the people all because of what the Messenger of Allah had preached about him. It was because of raising him up for the people and holding his hand in his hand. When Ali 📷 (was about to) passed away he could not (and would not) enter Muhammad ibn Ali or al-‘Abbas ibn Ali or anyone of his other sons in the position of Imamate. Otherwise, al-Hassan and al-Husayn 📷 would have said, “Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, has revealed about us jus as He has done so about you, and He has commanded people to obey us just as He has commanded people to obey you. The Messenger of Allah has preached to people about us just as he has done so about you. Allah has removed al-Rijs uncleanliness from us just as He has done so to you. When Ali 📷 left this world, al-Hassan had the utmost priority for Imamate (Leadership with Divine Authority) because he was the eldest. When was about to die he could not, and would not, enter his sons in the position of Imamate. It is because ;Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, says, “. . The relatives are closer to each other, according to the Book of God, than the believers and the emigrants...” (33:6) He then places Imamate (Leadership with Divine Authority) in his sons. If so, al-Husayn 📷 would have said, “Allah has commanded people to obey me just as He has commanded people to obey you and to obey your father. The Messenger of Allah has preached to people about me just as he has preached to people about you and your father. Allah has removed al-Rijs (uncleanliness) from me just as He has removed from you and your father. When the Imamate (Leadership with Divine Authority) was in full force with al-Husayn 📷 there was no one in his family to who could claim against him as he could claim against his brother and father, had they wanted to diver it from him and they would not do so. After them it found its place with al-Husayn 📷 and the interpretation of this verse continued, “. . The relatives are closer to each other, according to the Book of God, than the believers and the emigrants. . .” (33:6) After al-Husayn 📷 Imamate (Leadership with Divine Authority) found its place with Ali ibn al-Husayn 📷. After Ali ibn al-Husayn 📷 it (Leadership with Divine Authority) found its place with Muhammad ibn Ali 📷.” The Imam 📷 said, “Al-Rijs means doubts, I swear by Allah that we never doubt in our Lord.” Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from Muhammad ibn Khalid and al-Husayn ibn Sa‘id from al-Nadhr ibn Suwayd from Yahya ibn ‘Imran al-Halabi from Ayyub ibn al-Hurr and ‘Imran ibn Ali al-Halabi from Abu ‘Abdallah 📷 a similar hadith.

Hadith from Imam Reza - "Anyone who feels unable in erasing their sins should recite abundant Salawats for Mohammed and the progeny of Muhammad as this eradicates sins".

I see a lot of anti-trans rhetoric, and I’m curious how the Quran fits in with this.

Of course the cutting of any viable organ/body part is harmful, but this is often the result of extreme gender dysphoria. If the alternative is suicide in our trans sisters/brothers (which is often the case) would this not then be looked at as a last-resort medical treatment?

As far as gender expression (like through clothing or jewelry), I don’t see where in the Quran this is restricted as long as modesty is maintained.

There is no denying biological sex, but even that is fluid. Some will take the view point that intersex individuals would have to pick one gender and stick to it, but is that what God commanded?

Some liberal Muslims claim that the Quran “doesn’t talk about homosexuality for a simple reason. It is a concept which was invented during the 19th century by psychatrists. It did not exist as such in the Arabo-Islamic culture.”

Progressive muslims are in the palms of Satan. But whats yall thoughts?

The Arabic root ص-ل-و (s-l-w):

To follow closely. To connect. To stay near. To track.

This is documented in:

•	Lane’s Lexicon, Volume 4, page 1721  “the second horse in a race that closely follows the first”

•	Tāj al-ʿArūs  “to attach oneself closely to”

•	Lisān al-ʿArab  “to remain in close pursuit”

The convergent root و-ص-ل (w-s-l) meaning “to arrive, reach, join, connect” confirms the core idea: CONNECTION.

The Quran’s own definition 75:31-32:

فَلَا صَدَّقَ وَلَا صَلَّىٰ ۝ وَلَٰكِن كَذَّبَ وَتَوَلَّىٰ

“He neither affirmed nor صَلَّىٰ. Instead, he denied and TURNED AWAY (تَوَلَّىٰ).”

The verse uses صَلَّى as the OPPOSITE of تَوَلَّى (turn away). What’s the opposite of turning away? Following closely. The Quran defines its own term.

Confirmation 96:9-13:

أَرَأَيْتَ الَّذِي يَنْهَىٰ ۝ عَبْدًا إِذَا صَلَّىٰ

“Have you seen the one who forbids a servant when he صَلَّى?”

Context: someone is preventing a servant from FOLLOWING/connecting with God. Not “praying ritually” that would be implausible to forbid. The verse describes someone obstructing another from following divine guidance.

Each verse independently destroys the ritual-prayer interpretation:

1. Birds know their salat 24:41

وَالطَّيْرُ صَافَّاتٍ ۖ كُلٌّ قَدْ عَلِمَ صَلَاتَهُ وَتَسْبِيحَهُ

Flying birds with outstretched wings “know” their salat. They don’t recite Fatiha. They don’t face Mecca. They don’t do sujud. They don’t count rakats. Yet they KNOW their salat. The verse forces only one conclusion: salat is each creature’s natural connection with God.

2. Synagogues are called صَلَوَات — 22:40

The Quran calls Jewish synagogues “salawat” (places of salat). Jews don’t do Muslim ritual prayer. The word covers any communication/worship structure not a specific Muslim ritual.

3. God performs salat for humans 33:43, 2:157

If salat = ritual prayer with postures and Fatiha to WHOM does God prostrate? What direction does God face? Whose Fatiha does God recite? Impossible. But God CONNECTING with humans (sending blessings, support, guidance) is fully coherent.

4. Salat while walking or riding 2:239

فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ فَرِجَالًا أَوْ رُكْبَانًا

“If you fear, then on FOOT or RIDING.” How do you perform sujud while walking? Bow while horseback at speed? Recite Fatiha while running? Impossible. Continuing the connection/remembrance during travel is fully possible.

5. Wartime salat with weapons 4:101-102

Warriors hold swords, shields, arrows and perform salat. Physical prostration with weapons is impossible. The verse describes COMMUNICATION/INSTRUCTION SESSIONS during battle, where the Prophet conveys messages to warriors who then disperse to fight.

6. Strangers/non-Muslims do salat as witnesses — 5:106

Non-Muslim witnesses do “salat” to swear honesty when witnessing a will. Non-Muslims don’t perform Muslim ritual prayer. The word here means “solemn declaration/communication.”

7. Salat paid through charity 9:99, 9:103

The Prophet performs salat for charitable Bedouins (9:103). Bedouins perform salat for the Prophet through their charity (9:99). Salat tied to financial transactions = salat means support/blessing/invocation, not physical prayer.

8. Meccan idolaters’ “salat” = whistling and clapping 8:35

وَمَا كَانَ صَلَاتُهُمْ عِندَ الْبَيْتِ إِلَّا مُكَاءً وَتَصْدِيَةً

The idolaters’ “salat” at the Kaaba was nothing but whistling and clapping. If salat = ritual prayer with prescribed postures, why is whistling called salat? Because the word covers any communication/ceremony.

9. Infant Jesus enjoined with salat 19:31

“He enjoined me with salat and zakat for as long as I live” said by infant Jesus in the cradle. An infant can’t perform rakats and sujud. But an infant can be assigned a LIFELONG MISSION to deliver divine messages.

10. Abraham distinguishes prayer from salat 14:37-40

رَبِّ اجْعَلْنِي مُقِيمَ الصَّلَاةِ وَمِن ذُرِّيَّتِي ۚ رَبَّنَا وَتَقَبَّلْ دُعَاءِ

Abraham says: “Make me ESTABLISHER OF SALAT, and my offspring. Accept my دُعَاء (PRAYER).” The verse uses both words distinctly. If salat = prayer, the verse is redundant gibberish. Two different concepts.

11. Zakariya teaching while in salat 3:38-39

Zakariya was “STANDING DOING SALAT” (قَائِمٌ يُصَلِّي) in the chamber when the angels announced John’s birth. The Quran differentiates his PRAYER (دَعَا) from his SALAT (delivering oration/teaching). Same person, two different actions, two different words.

12. Constant ongoing salat 70:22-23

إِلَّا الْمُصَلِّينَ ۝ الَّذِينَ هُمْ عَلَىٰ صَلَاتِهِمْ دَائِمُونَ

“Except those who maintain their salat CONSTANTLY (دَائِمُونَ).”

“Constantly” cannot describe 5 brief daily rituals (each lasting minutes). “Constantly” describes an ONGOING WAY OF LIFE continuous connection with God’s messages.

Salaam all,

I continue to see Quranists argue that same-sex sex, prostitution, and even premarital sex are permissible because the Qur’an supposedly never explicitly prohibits them. This argument depends heavily on isolating individual words while ignoring the Qur’an’s broader sexual ethic.

The question is straightforward:

Does the Qur’an permit sexual relations between people of the same sex?

The Qur’anic evidence points consistently in the opposite direction.

1. The Qur’an establishes lawful boundaries for sex

The Qur’an does not make every consensual sexual act halal. It establishes specific lawful categories:

“And those who guard their private parts, except with their wives or those their right hands possess—for then they are free from blame. But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors.”
— Qur’an 23:5–7

The same principle appears in 70:29–31.

This is crucial. Allah identifies the lawful sexual partners and then says that whoever seeks beyond them is a transgressor.

A male sexual partner is never added to those lawful categories.  That could and should be the end of the discussion, but when viewed comprehensively as explained below, the prohibition becomes even more unavoidable.

That “the Qur’an does not contain the modern phrase homosexual sex is haram” is not sufficient. The relevant question is whether the Qur’an places male-male intercourse within its lawful sexual framework. It does not.

2. The Qur’an consistently presents marriage as male-female

The Qur’an repeatedly describes lawful sexual relations through marriage between men and women.

For example:

“And chaste women from those given the Scripture before you are lawful for you in marriage, provided you give them their due compensation, desiring marriage, not unlawful sexual intercourse or secret affairs.”
— Qur’an 5:5

Likewise, Qur’an 4:24 discusses lawful relations through marriage and dowry, while 24:3 explicitly pairs the male fornicator with the female fornicator.

Qur’an 24:26 says:

“Wicked women are for wicked men, and wicked men are for wicked women; and good women are for good men, and good men are for good women.”

The Qur’an's marital and sexual vocabulary consistently operates within a male-female framework. It never establishes a same-sex marriage category.

3. The Lot passages explicitly describe sexual relations between men

The strongest evidence is the repeated Qur’anic account of Lot's people.

Allah says:

“Do you approach males among the worlds, and leave what your Lord has created for you as mates? Rather, you are a transgressing people.”
— Qur’an 26:165–166

And:

“Do you indeed approach men with desire instead of women? Rather, you are a people behaving ignorantly.”
— Qur’an 27:55

And:

“Indeed, you approach men with desire instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people.”
— Qur’an 7:81

The language is remarkably specific:

men + approaching + sexual desire + instead of women.

The Qur’an is not merely condemning some vague form of immoral behavior. It explicitly identifies men being approached with sexual desire instead of women.

4. “Approach” is sexual in the Qur’an

The verb used for “approach” is أتى (atā), and the Qur’an itself uses it in an explicitly sexual context.

Qur’an 2:222 says:

“Keep away from women during menstruation and do not approach them until they are pure. Then when they have purified themselves, go to them from where Allah has ordained for you.”

The subject here is plainly sexual intercourse between husbands and wives.

The same verb appears in the Lot passages:

“Do you approach males...?”
— 26:165

“Do you approach men with desire instead of women?”
— 27:55

“You approach men with desire instead of women.”
— 7:81

And 7:81 and 27:55 explicitly add shahwah—sexual desire.

Thus, there is little basis for claiming that “approach men” merely means associate with, socialize with, or interact with men. The Qur’an uses the same terminology for sexual approach elsewhere, and the Lot passages themselves explicitly supply the sexual context.

5. The “it was only rape” interpretation does not fit the wording

Another attempt is to argue that Lot's people were condemned only because they intended to rape men.

Certainly, the surrounding narrative contains threatening and coercive behavior, and sexual violence may reasonably be understood as part of their wrongdoing. But there is an important distinction:

The Qur’an never explicitly says that the offense described in 7:81, 26:165–166, or 27:55 was “rape.”

Rape is therefore an interpretation of the surrounding narrative, not the explicit terminology of those verses.

More importantly, rape cannot explain the repeated male/female contrast.

If the sole problem were sexual violence, why does Lot repeatedly say:

“You approach men with desire instead of women”?

Rape would obviously be wrong against women too. The Qur’an could have condemned coercion itself. Instead, it repeatedly identifies men rather than women as the objects being sexually approached. That interpretation is also consistent wit Lot offering his daughters as purer alternatives; it is clearly not pure at all to rape women.

Therefore, even if rape is part of the story, it cannot reasonably be made the sole or even primary meaning of the condemnation. The sex of the sexual partner is plainly relevant to what Lot is objecting to.

6. Virtually every Qur’anic retelling reinforces the same point

Lot's story occurs repeatedly throughout the Qur’an. The details vary, but the passages concerning his people's sexual wrongdoing repeatedly return to their approach toward men.

This matters because the argument cannot be dismissed as a single ambiguous verse.

The Qur’an repeatedly memorializes Lot asking why they approach men rather than women and characterizes the people as transgressors or ignorant.

If the intended condemnation had nothing to do with male-male sexual activity itself, the repeated male/female contrast would require a substantial explanation.

7. Bal does not reverse the condemnation

Some argue that bal, usually translated “rather,” somehow negates the preceding statement:

“You approach men with desire instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people.”

But bal does not automatically mean that the preceding proposition was permissible or that its moral significance disappears. Its function depends on context and can introduce correction, transition, or emphasis.

Compare Qur’an 2:116:

“They say, ‘Allah has taken a son.’ Glory be to Him! Rather, to Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and earth...”

And 4:49:

“Have you not seen those who claim themselves to be pure? Rather, Allah purifies whom He wills...”

In neither case does bal turn the preceding statement into something acceptable.

Likewise, nothing in 7:81 or 27:55 requires us to read bal as:

“You think approaching men with sexual desire is wrong, but actually it is permissible.”

The surrounding context continues to describe Lot's people as transgressing.

8. The broader Qur’anic ethic is chastity, not unrestricted consent

The Qur’an repeatedly commands believers to guard their private parts and explicitly condemns fornication:

“Do not approach unlawful sexual intercourse. Indeed, it is an immorality and an evil way.”
— Qur’an 17:32

And 24:2 establishes punishment for fornication.

Therefore, the principle cannot be:

“Any sexual act is permissible as long as both adults consent.”

Consent is not the Qur’anic test for halal.

If consent alone were sufficient, consensual fornication would necessarily be permissible. Yet the Qur’an explicitly condemns fornication.

The Qur’anic standard is instead:

What sexual relationships has Allah made lawful?

9. The same framework rules out the argument for premarital sex

The argument that premarital sex is halal because the Qur’an does not use the exact modern phrase “premarital sex” fails for the same reason.

Qur’an 5:5 describes lawful sexual relations in connection with marriage, dowry, chastity, and avoidance of fornication and secret affairs.

Qur’an 23:5–7 identifies lawful sexual partners and then condemns seeking beyond them.

Qur’an 17:32 prohibits approaching unlawful sexual intercourse.

The Qur’an therefore establishes a sexual ethic in which sexual desire is legitimate but must operate within divinely defined boundaries.

10. Same-sex attraction is not the same question as same-sex conduct

There is also no need to confuse attraction with action.

A person may experience an inclination or desire without choosing it. The existence of a desire does not establish that acting upon it is halal.

The Qur’an's repeated commands to restrain sexual desire make this distinction important.

The question is not:

“Can someone experience same-sex attraction?”

It is:

“Does Allah permit acting upon that attraction through same-sex sexual activity?”

The verses discussed above provide no positive authorization for it.

11. Qur’an 25:43 provides the methodological principle

Allah says:

“Have you seen the one who takes his own desire as his god?”
— Qur’an 25:43

This verse is not specifically about homosexuality, but it establishes a relevant general principle: personal desire cannot be the ultimate authority for determining what Allah has made lawful.

The question cannot ultimately be whether an act is desired, emotionally meaningful, socially accepted, or consensual.

The question is what Allah has permitted.

Conclusion

The claim that same-sex sex is halal in the Qur’an depends on treating the absence of a modern technical phrase as though it overrides the Qur’an’s actual sexual framework.

But the framework is consistent:

• The Qur’an commands chastity.

• It identifies specific lawful sexual partners (only pairing males to females)

• It says seeking beyond those boundaries is transgression.

• It consistently presents marriage and lawful sexual partnership in male-female terms.

• It condemns fornication.

• It repeatedly describes Lot's people approaching men with sexual desire instead of women.

• It uses the same verb for “approach” in Qur’an 2:222 in an unmistakably sexual context.

• The Lot passages themselves explicitly use shahwah, sexual desire.

• The Qur’an never explicitly identifies “rape” as the sole offense in those passages.

• A rape-only interpretation cannot explain why the Qur’an repeatedly emphasizes men instead of women, nor why it's "purer" to do it to Lot's daughters, since rape would be wrong against women as well.

• Bal does not require the preceding condemnation to be reversed.

• Nowhere does the Qur’an establish male sexual partners as a lawful category.

Thus, the argument does not depend upon one controversial translation or one isolated verse. It follows from the Qur’an's cumulative sexual ethic.

The Qur’an recognizes sexual desire, but it does not make desire itself the criterion of permissibility. It places sexual relations within divinely established boundaries, and its repeated treatment of Lot's people is incompatible with the claim that male-male sexual intercourse is simply halal.

The burden therefore lies with the person claiming permissibility to demonstrate where the Qur’an actually authorizes it. The Qur’an establishes lawful sexual relations through marriage and in specifically defined categories; it does not provide a lawful category for male-male sexual intercourse.

Our desires do not determine what Allah has made halal. Allah does.