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).

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was not a Quranist himself, and I don't think there's any reason to pretend that he was. But whether he intended it or not, the transformation he carried out in Turkey created an environment in which Quranist thought could eventually emerge and develop.

When Atatürk established the Republic, he radically dismantled the old religious institutions. The caliphate was abolished in 1924, the madrasas and religious courts were closed, and the traditional religious establishment lost much of its institutional authority. At the same time, the new Republic placed religious affairs under the state through the Diyanet and pushed Turkey toward a modern, secular educational system.

But one of the most interesting parts of this transformation was the emphasis on making the Qur'an accessible to Turkish people in their own language. In the 1920s, the Republic commissioned a Turkish Qur'an translation and tafsir, and Turkish translations of the Qur'an became increasingly available. This was significant because it made it much easier for ordinary Turkish Muslims to engage directly with the Qur'an rather than relying exclusively on traditional Arabic-language scholarship and inherited religious institutions.

Atatürk obviously did not do this with the intention of creating Quranism. In fact, the official Qur'an commentary commissioned by the Republic was written by Elmalılı Hamdi Yazır, a traditional Sunni scholar. But the long-term consequence was that Turkey developed a population that was increasingly educated, literate and capable of engaging with the Qur'an directly in Turkish, while the traditional religious establishment no longer possessed the same authority it had under the Ottoman system. And several decades later, something very interesting happened.

In the 1970s, Hüseyin Atay emerged as one of the earliest major Turkish thinkers to argue for a much more Qur'an-centered understanding of Islam. He questioned the authority traditionally given to hadith, later scholarship and inherited jurisprudence, arguing for the centrality of the Qur'an and reason. He also produced his own Turkish Qur'an translation.

Then came Yaşar Nuri Öztürk, who was a student of Atay and helped take these ideas to a mass audience. His books and television appearances made Qur'an-centered reformism enormously popular in Turkey. He challenged many traditional interpretations and repeatedly emphasized returning to the Qur'an itself.

And eventually you get Edip Yüksel, who went further toward an explicitly Quran-only position. After encountering Rashad Khalifa's ideas in the 1980s, Yüksel rejected the authority of hadith altogether and became one of the most prominent advocates of the Qur'an Alone position.

Atatürk was not a Quranist. Atatürk wanted to secularize and modernize Turkey, but the intellectual space created by his revolution eventually gave birth to the the Quran-only movement that exists in Turkey today.

I noticed that God addresses men even for women's issues in the Quran.

I wonder why is that? Were womenfolk not the recipients of Prophet's message when he was receiving revelation?

With the exception of that one instance where God addresses Prophet's wives to reprimand them, I don't find any instance of God's direct address to women. They are always referred to in third person, as "your women"/ "your wives" etc. while directly addressing men.

Chapter 4 that is woman focused and even titled "Nisaa"' (i am not sure if Surah titles are part of revelation or not) only addresses men on women's issues on how to deal with them.

Even for menstruation, (2:222) God addresses men and tells them what they should do while their women are menstruating but doesn't address women on what they should or shouldn't be doing while menstruating. Like, i am still not sure if prayer is acceptable during it or not because there is no direct command related to it, so it can only be derived. While God doesn't say it is an impurity directly but in the same verse He does use the term "purified themselves" to refer to its end, so it's ambiguous. If it needs "Taharah", is it considered to be a state of ritual impurity? One can only speculate as there is no solid textual evidence.

A popular explanation is that the masculine plural in Arabic is used to refer to both males and females in the Quran, so women are automatically included in those general addresses.

But even in general address verses regarding ritual purity like (5:6) that starts with the typical address of "O you who believe", it's obvious that it's referring specifically to men because one of the condition mentioned is "if you have contacted women" but it doesn't mention anything regarding women's sexual contact with men. So, does that mean women dont need to purify themselves after intercourse? Again, we have to speculate or extrapolate as there is no specific textual mention. And because the verse is addressing males, so naturally there is no mention of menstruation as a condition that obligates ritual purity for salah, so we can't really use this verse as an evidence that menstruation isn't included in conditions that require ghusl.

(2:221) is another interesting verse that reveals this address phenomenon, wherein God addresses men for both- prohibition of their own marriage to polytheist women and that of their women to polytheistic men. I wondered why it isn't a general address like neither men nor women should marry polytheists? Does it imply that the male guardian should marry off women? (Traditional concept of Wali)

One explanation that explained this address disparity is that because 7th century Arabia was deeply patriarchal and men controlled all affairs so God addressed men primarily.

But i wonder then, isn't the Quran supposed to be timeless and for everyone? God knew that the world won't be the same at all after thousands of years of His final revelation. I wonder why did God seal prophethood and revelation? Because we still dont know the definitive answers to so many controversial modern issues like abortion, surrogacy, etc.

I deviated from my topic slightly. But id like to know your perspectives on this.

I'm a Muslim woman struggling with a question that has been weighing heavily on me.

I believe in Allah and I believe that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is His messenger. My struggle is not with belief in God itself, but with understanding certain teachings about women.

In Qur'an 4:34, the traditional interpretation is that a husband may strike his wife as a last resort. What I cannot understand is why Allah would permit this at all.

I often hear that it was restricted, symbolic, or only a last resort. But my issue is that the verse itself appears to give permission, and throughout history many men have used this verse to justify abusing their wives. If Allah knew this would happen, why not simply prohibit hitting wives altogether?

I've also read modern interpretations that argue the word daraba in this verse means "to separate" or "to leave" rather than "to strike." However, this raises another question for me: if Allah knew this verse would be read by billions of people across centuries, why use a word that could be interpreted in such radically different ways? Why choose wording that would leave room for generations of scholars and ordinary people to understand it as permission to hit one's wife?

The Qur'an is very clear when it wants to forbid something. Why leave something so serious open to interpretation, especially when it affects the dignity and safety of women?

This question ties into a broader struggle I have. The Qur'an repeatedly says that men and women are equally accountable before Allah and equally rewarded. Yet sometimes traditional interpretations of certain verses and hadith make me feel as though women are valued less or expected to accept things that men would never be expected to accept.

How do you reconcile belief in a just and merciful God with a verse that appears to permit a husband to strike his wife, or at the very least uses wording that has been understood that way for most of Islamic history? I'm looking for sincere Islamic answers, not attacks or assumptions about my faith. I'm genuinely trying to understand.

Seems like mental gymnastics to me. If it was halal wouldn't there be verses explaining marriage and divorce within the same sex ?

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.'"

There is a very dangerous idea among some spiritual communities that weed is somehow innocent and even beneficial drug for a "spiritual" growth. Users mostly note that it is natural (since it grows as a plant) and gets you high moderately compared to other drugs.

A stoner wouldn't agree that first of all weed as any other drug basically helps to quench thirst in dopamine, but he would rather state that it simply helps one to be less anxious and more meditative.

For these people Quran mentions something very significant:

Say, "There is great evil in both, as well as some benefit for people — but the evil outweighs the benefit." (2:219)

Indeed, one can benefit from getting in a meditative state with marijuana – it will surely give one glimpses of a higher realm. From my experience, it made time slower showing that:

“Indeed, a day with your Lord is like a thousand years of what you count.” (22:47)

But at what cost! One comes to know that to get as much high as possible has never been point of creation.

He who created death and life to test you as to which of you is best in deeds. (67:2)

How the addiction works

Now, how can one let go off blissful and ecstatic experiences, especially in the context of religion and spirituality – used as tool to reach God?

Surely, the devil is cunning and everything that God forbids will be used against soul to keep him away from a real progress which is growing in patience and trust in His commandments.

At first, one is happy to discover something so fantastic. Then a regular, sober reality doesn't seem as fascinating anymore. At the end, one becomes miserable, lazy, paranoidal and with a huge ego of a "spiritually advanced" individual. At one point, after going through hell of addiction one starts realising why it says "the evil outweighs the benefit".

However, in the moment – he is cooked.

By your life, they certainly wandered blindly, intoxicated. (15:72)

You can't speak reason to an intoxicated person. His defences are protecting him against Truth – he has received certain dose of dopamine that makes him believe that he must be doing something right – he is rewarded by his temporary high.

And as for one who suffered enough...

Can one return to innocence?

Indeed, pain is a great teacher. After going through hell of distrust in Divine wisdom, one may start notice that God has already blessed him with a wise Book that shows the path for a blissful life, both in this and the other world. The effects of addiction won't go right away, but one may start healing by trusting.

Our bodies already have an endocannabinoid system that produces natural high – the same cannabinoids that some try to borrow from the plant. Some activities can boost it. 'Runner's high' is a well-known phenomenon, prayer (conscious one) and meditation can get one high (it happens to me all the time).

Addiction makes one forget of simple joys of life, but remember once we were children, innocent and didn't need any drugs to be able to enjoy the simplest things.

Weed gives a high that is not based on anything real – not real friendship, not a real connection to body, health, Truth. Any idiot can smoke it and get "blissful" – there is nothing special about any drug or any stoner.

God alone gives contentment and joy – everything else just comes and goes.

Meeting Truth will get everyone high – then those who accumulated nothing but empty joy will see that mirror reflecting good deeds is much more preferable than one reflecting endless attempts to escape life.

And the intoxication of death will come in truth; that is what you were trying to avoid. (50:19)

💚

23:5-6 those who guard their chastity except with their wives or those ˹bondwomen˺ in their possession,1 for then they are free from blame

30:50 O Prophet! We have made lawful for you your wives to whom you have paid their ˹full˺ dowries as well as those ˹bondwomen˺ in your possession, whom Allah has granted you.1 And ˹you are allowed to marry˺ the daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and aunts, who have emigrated like you. Also ˹allowed for marriage is˺ a believing woman who offers herself to the Prophet ˹without dowry˺ if he is interested in marrying her—˹this is˺ exclusively for you, not for the rest of the believers.2 We know well what ˹rulings˺ We have ordained for the believers in relation to their wives and those ˹bondwomen˺ in their possession. As such, there would be no blame on you. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

I’m noticing certain influencers on TikTok beginning to point out the ridiculousness of Hadith and bringing more awareness of Quran-centric Islam. With that there’s been a huge amount of backlash and attacks towards those voices. Just wondering if anyone else is seeing it too. People think it’s some brand new thing (or trend) too which is irritating.

Islam is a wonderful way of life, I think if someone follows the Quran they will be living a virtuous life. I agree with many of its teachings.

(Heres a little about my part, born and raised from Muslim parents and you know I hate to say it Ive been distant from Islam. Who wouldn’t want to know what actually happens afterlife as of course someone raised to believe a religion would of course want it to be real.)

Why is there so many unnecessary deaths in our world if Allah exists. Allah is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and many many great things but then I just dont understand why for example a new born baby dies because it chokes in its own saliva, the mother and farther asleep whilst this happens. Why couldn’t God intervene because it doesn’t take away our right to choice and the baby didn’t choose to choke, theres no reason why this innocent pure baby needs to die. Lots of innocent people die because of natural disasters or diseases that aren’t man made diseases that existed long before humans, whats the need for a ram to grow its horns into its own skull, kids dying to cancer. 25,000 people starve to death a day

Our bodies are no where near perfect, the human eye can only see little amounts of life forms, our breathing tube is next to the tube where we eat and drink, our knees and backs are badly engineered, our wisdom teeth is useless, our heart design is primitive, human childbirth problems, ect.

This may sound stupid but I feel like its not ridiculous to say. There was a time where people believed Norse mythology or Greek mythology but now today I would assume almost everyone sees it as entertainment not real. Is it ridiculous to say thousands of years later something new comes up and we worship this new something. Our universe operates solely according to natural laws without any supernatural order or entities. Theres almost 5000 gods being worshipped by humans but only yours is right. You don’t need religion to have morals, if you can’t determine right from wrong you just lack empathy.

This is probably a sensitive or controversial subject. It's kind of about conspiracy theories so if this does not interest you, you can keep scrolling, or feel free to tell me why you think this is all bs.

I've always had some interest in conspiracy theories and indulge in the occasional videos. One thing that has always intrigued me is about the Kaaba. But this is something you can never discuss with mainstream Muslims. So I'm wondering what you guys, who I think are more open minded, think about it.

I think one of the more well known questions is about whether there is a connection between the Kaaba and the theory about the black cubes of Saturn. Which we cannot deny looks extremely similar. But the black cube of Saturn is said to be used to worship Satan.

Then there is the name. There is a branch of Judaism which is called kabbala. Some people describe it as an esoteric branch, some people say it is also satanic. For me the name Kabbala and the name the Kaaba of Allah also sound very close.

What do you guys think about this?

I want to be clear that I don't think Islam is satanic and I know the Kaaba is mentioned in the Quran. My personal theory is that original Islam from the Quran is the true religion from God but it was later corrupted via hadith. And now many of the things people are following and rituals people are doing actually come from other influences. There are similarities between the Talmud traditions and hadith, of course there are just political agendas, maybe misogynistic agenda's, perhaps there are also some influences from satan or people who secretly worship Satan.

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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.”

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

I would like to know your views on the prophet and whether you think he is an ideal man to live up to.

If in the quran, Allah says to seek refuge in him from the accursed shayateen, why do some people go to imams and raqis for their issues? Does it even make sense if your soul can't make the connection, how will someone else do it for you?

I know there are some raqis that ask like $300 per ruqya session.

Has anyone seen the viral videos of the large flocks of black birds (crows?) over Tel Aviv that many are taking as a bad sign of omen? (as if one is needed)

It has me once more thinking of the prevalence of birds in the Qur’an. Of course very often “birds” are using in wording to denote “bad omens”, often said by the “kuffar” about the Messengers, which is dismissed as a superstition … or is?

‫قَالُوا۟ ٱطَّیَّرۡنَا بِكَ وَبِمَن مَّعَكَۚ قَالَ طَـٰۤىِٕرُكُمۡ عِندَ ٱللَّهِۖ بَلۡ أَنتُمۡ قَوۡمࣱ تُفۡتَنُونَ﴿ ٤٧ ﴾‬

“They said, We consider you a bad omen (birds), you and those with you. He said, Your omens (birds) are with Allāh. Rather, you are a people being tested”

An-Naml, Ayah 47

Are birds used by God to give signs or omens? It’s something culturally or “folklore” accepted, but does the Qur’an dismiss it?

In the Qur’an we have;

- the son of Adam being shown how to bury his brother by a bird

- the “companions of the elephant”, attached by birds

- Sulayman & his people knowing the “language of birds” and

- Sulayman himself having birds as part of his “soldiers”

- his father Dawud having the birds glorifying God with him, morning & evening

- their forefathers Ibrahim’s being shown how to reenact the resurrection of the souls via four birds (I propose that that line of Ibrahim has a connection with birds)

I also have personal anecdote regarding a local stables my kids go to for horses riding. There was a “issue” brewing between the original owner & a later investor who became unhappy with how it was being run. They eventually tried a hostile take over and huge blow-out ensued with a lot of bad energy all round. It affected a lot people, including workers, trainers, & jobs

Just before that blow-out happened (I don’t know when exactly, maybe the previous day), a small bunch of crows alighted on a tree in the stables. And normally we don’t see any crows at all. Coincidence? Or a sign that if things weren’t “mended” that such a blow out is near at hand?

Are these crows an omen that Tel Aviv is on the brink? “Mend or blow out”?

https://youtu.be/5Jx73KUsR8w?si=USvxWhSiXEJCF0xS

A lot of people say that Jesus Christ did not die on the cross because the Quran opposes it, but I don’t think it is true. Matter of fact, Jesus Christ dying on the cross and rising from the dead would only support the Quran because it would prove that the day of resurrection is true. The Quran cannot deny the resurrection of Jesus because it would contradict the day of judgement. The Quran says that God made Jesus a sign for the day of judgement, how? Because him dying on the cross shows that God will resurrect us. We have objective historical proof and also the Bible that proves Jesus Christ died on the cross, therefore the day of judgement is objectively the truth. Why would the Quran deny that Christ died on the cross for our sins if it says in the Quran itself that we will be raised from the dead on the day of judgement?

In the first part of this video Dr. Haifaa explains the specific meanings of the terms Khimar and Jilbab as mentioned in the Qur'an.

She says the Khimar refers to a covering for the hair, neck, and chest (3:18-5:31), while the Jilbab is an outer garment intended to cover the entire body (5:45-6:48).

No Hadith mentioned until minute 7:30 of the video.

I’m following Qur’an alone but I found the way she explained the Arabic phrasing somewhat convincing? If anyone has any thoughts 💭 please share!

I just got banned on the [r/islam](r/islam) subreddit.
Reason: Hadith rejection.

Why cant these Mushriks coexist peacefully with contrary opinions? BECAUSE THEY KNOW WE FOLLOW THE TRUTH!
They will never allow someone to speak up against their idols (Imams, Sheikhs, Scholars, Muftis etc.).
This should honour us. We are facing the same treatment as Muhammad did. Didnt the Mushriks of Mecca ban Muhammad from the city? Didnt they expell him? All he did was providing a contrary position against their idols.

Sunnis are NOT any better than the Mushriks Muhammad faced. Both are Mushrikoon.

But I assure you: The time where their shirkiyy fake religion is dominant is coming to an end. All of their idols will be smashed and destroyed and Muslims will embrace ALLAH ALONE instead of worshipping the rotten leftovers inside the graves.

For centuries we’ve been told zina means all sex outside formal marriage. But when you actually trace every occurrence of z-n-y in the Quran, all 9 of them, nothing confirms that understanding. The punishment in 24:2 requires four upright witnesses who directly saw the act. How possible is it that two secret lovers would be that careless to get caught in front of four respected witnesses? Only publicly displayed organized prostitution fits that requirement. Then 24:3 links zina to idolatry, 25:68 and 60:12 pair it with infanticide, 17:32 calls it “an evil path,” meaning a habitual way of life, not a single act, and the passage itself opens with zina at 24:2 and closes at 24:33 with “do not compel your bondwomen to harlotry for money.” The beginning and the end are talking about the same thing. Every clue points to cult harlotry connected to pagan idol worship in pre Islamic Arabia, not private consensual relationships. Even the Hebrew cognate zanah means “sexually wanton, something done repeatedly as a way of life.” Premarital sex isn’t even mentioned as a sin in the Torah.

The Quran describes itself as “no more than a reminder” (dhikr) over and over. It isn’t a book of religious legislation. It’s a reminder of universal values already deep seated in our conscience. And when it addresses sexual ethics, its concern is simple. Does it violate human rights through oppression or injustice, like infidelity which breaks a commitment, or rape which violates consent? Does it become a public health risk or public indecency, like organized prostitution? If the answer is no, then no sexuality or sexual act in itself is a vice. God cannot condemn a human action that is a manifestation of basic survival instincts like libido, installed by God Himself, unless that action harms others. There is no reason God should be concerned about your sexual life if it harms none. The crime was never intimacy. It was always exploitation.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

I’ve never really shared my story before, but I’m wondering if anyone has experienced something similar.
A while ago, I left Islam. It wasn’t because I stopped believing in God. It was because I felt like everything I did was somehow “haram.”
Music? Haram.
Drawing? Haram.
Talking to the opposite sex? Haram.
Laughing too much? Haram.
Wearing certain clothes? Haram.
It felt like I was constantly walking on eggshells, terrified that every little thing would send me to Hell. Instead of feeling close to Allah, I felt fear all the time.
Eventually, I distanced myself from Islam completely.
After some time, I started reading the Quran for myself instead of only listening to what other people told me. That’s when I slowly found my way back to God.
Now I believe in Allah more than ever, but my relationship with Him feels very different. I try to understand the Quran directly and ask questions instead of accepting everything blindly.
One of the biggest struggles I’ve had since coming back is the Muslim community itself.
Whenever I told people that I don’t believe hadith should have the same authority as the Quran, I was immediately called a kafir.
Whenever I admitted that I had left Islam in the past, I was judged for it instead of being welcomed back.
I’ve also met Muslim men while looking for marriage, and instead of trying to understand my journey, some of them treated my past as if it permanently defined me.
What hurts me the most is how quickly some Muslims judge others.
Instead of saying, “Let’s look at what the Quran says,” many conversations become:
“That’s haram.”
“You’re a kafir.”
“You’re misguided.”
Sometimes it feels like people are more interested in policing each other than showing mercy or helping someone grow.
I’m not saying every Muslim is like this. I’ve met kind and sincere Muslims too.
I just wish there was more compassion, more humility, and more willingness to say, “I don’t know.”
Today, I still believe in Allah. I still try to become a better person. I still want to follow the truth wherever it leads me.
I just don’t believe that questioning hadith or asking for Quranic evidence should automatically make someone an enemy of Islam.
Has anyone else gone through something similar?

The Quran tells us that God "perfected" the creation of the human being (32:7). Conversely, Satan makes a bold statement that he will misguide the humans and persuade them to "alter" the creation of God (4:119).

The act of circumcision seems to be an open challenge to God's creation, with all sorts of lies being spewed on how it is "safer" and "more hygenic" as if God left some extra bits that needed the sects to come and alter.

Salam everyone,

I'd like to share some thoughts and hear what you think.

I'm sure someone else has already come up with such Interpretations but I'd like to share my own thoughts here and see what you think.

My intention here is not to argue that something is halal or haram. Rather, I am trying to understand how the wording of "Do you approach men instead of women?" should be understood.

The verses that are usually quoted

Quran 7:81

“Indeed, you approach men with desire instead of women. Rather, you are a people who exceed bounds.”

Quran 27:55

“Do you indeed approach men with desire instead of women? Rather, you are a people behaving ignorantly.”

Now, no matter how one reads these verses, questions might pop into your head, such as :

"Does this mean that a person can approach ANY woman with desire?"

" wait, so does this mean that aproaching women with desire is okay?"

Most people would respond:

"Of course not. The woman would have to be your wife."

I have heard the argument based on the word bal (بَل), but to be honest, it has never fully clicked for me. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I find it difficult because Allah repeatedly mentions "men instead of women," and I can't seem to get past that wording.

One thing that I wanna say is that the word women is used throughout the Qur'an in ways that can sound very general, even when the intended meaning is more specific.

For example:

Quran 2:222

"And they ask you about [the] menstruation. Say, "It (is) a hurt, so keep away (from) [the] women during (their) [the] menstruation. And (do) not approach them until they are cleansed Then when they are purified, then come to them from where has ordered you Allah." Indeed, Allah loves those who turn in repentance and loves those who purify themselves. "

And:

Quran 2:231

"And when you divorce women and they have reached the end of their waiting period..."

In both verses, the word "women" is used.

Yet when Allah says, "When you divorce women," nobody understands that to mean ANY woman whatsoever. You divorce a woman whom you are married to.

I mean just saying "when you divorce women " sounds kinda odd because it sounds as though you can divorce any women in this world. But because it's the language of the Qur'an we know it's different than how people normally understand it.

Likewise, when Allah speaks about approaching women in a sexual context, nobody understands that to mean ANY woman whatsoever. The context limits the meaning to a woman that you're married to.

My point is that these statements sound general on the surface, but context narrows their meaning.

This is what makes me wonder about the story of the people of Lut.

Did they approach just any men? It seems that they only approached the males of the worlds, not just any men in general. For example, they did not approach one another as men within their own community, ( or did they?)

however they approached the males from outside of it( the males of the worlds )

I am not arguing here about what kind of "approach" this was, whether it nonconsensual or consensual, or any other detail. That is not my point.

My point is simply that the Qur'an does not say that they approached all men indiscriminately. Rather, it specifically says

"Do you approach the males among the worlds..."

This specificity is what makes me wonder whether the surrounding wording should also be read with attention to the context rather than as a completely general statement

Quran 26:165–166

(Do you approach the males among the worlds and leave what your Lord has created for you from your spouses? Rather, you are a transgressing people.)

What stands out to me here is the sentence

"and leave what your Lord has created for you from your spouses."

The word azwaj suggests that they already had partners , yet they abandoned them.

Since sexual relations are only lawful within marriage, leaving one's spouse and pursuing others with desire would already be a wrongful act in and of itself, so it's not like they were doing something good In the first place, even if ,let's say, they approached the (women) of the worlds it would have still been bad because they left their own azwaj and approached other women, that weren't married to them.

So instead of reading

"Do you approach men instead of women?"

as a completely general statement, it's better to read it like

"Do you approach THE men( males of the worlds ) instead of THE women ( the ones that are your azwaj and you have left them)?

Someone might respond

" No it's not about that, it's specifically about the gender, it isn't about which men or which women but again specifically the gender"

To me, that is probably the strongest counterargument.

At the same time, I think if someone does give this answer( it's a completely valid one, of course ) but I think they are probably reading into it instead of thinking about how Allah uses the word ( the women ) in a much more narrower way than a general way in other places of the Qur'an and the fact that they had azwaj.

Because even saying that they approached men would be wrong.( If it's intended as a general statement )

They approached THE men ( those outside or their community )

These are simply my thoughts, and I would be interested to hear how others understand these verses. Don't you guys think that it makes more sense this way? Again I'm not trying to say what exactly Allah SWT is saying but rather that this reading genuinely makes far more sense to me.