When sometimes one Muslim gives a good answer to the attacks and distortions of other Muslims, there is no reason not to acknowledge this. The below response is taken from a newsgroup discussion.
From marjan@vom.com (AbdulraHman Lomax) Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam Subject: Re: Prophet Lot Date: Sat Nov 08 16:12:44 EST 1997 Message-Id: <642kkc$jji@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> as-salamu 'alaykum. "Arabic Paper" <alegria@flash.net> wrote: >While in the Bible, Genesis 19: 30-28 "" Now Lot went up out of Zo'ar, and >dwelt in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to dwell in >Zo'ar; so he dwelt in a cave with his two daughters. >And the first-born said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is >not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth. > Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we >may preserve offspring through our father." >So they made their father drink wine that night; and the first-born went >in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she >arose. >And on the next day, the first-born said to the younger, "Behold, I lay >last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then >you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our >father." >So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger >arose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she >arose. >Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. >The first-born bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of >the Moabites to this day. >The younger also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father >of the Ammonites to this. "" >Lot was a prophet; and all prophets were a special select of God to be his >messengers to the people. He equipped them with wisdom, knowledge, >chastity, and piety so as to be the best examples for their folks to >follow. Yes, this is a general truth. However, outside their mission, there is some evidence that Prophets can fall short of "the best." Moses, AS, for example, appears to have had a temper, even to the point of danger. But the subject story does not betray any fault on the part of Lot. It is a story that I will not repeat, because it casts aspersions on the daughters of Lot, though certainly there were extenuating circumstances. I suspect the story of being an insertion, aimed at denigrating the Moabites and Ammonites. Obviously, it is not an eye-witness account but would have been based on an old story. I write in this topic because I find it offensive for Muslims to attempt to blacken the reputation of the Bible. The Qur'an does not do this and our Prophet, SAS, did not do this, and, in fact, we can find evidence that such slander is unlawful. We may find it necessary to question this or that part of the Bible, but we must also remember that the Torah and the Injiyl, which are major parts of the Bible (and this story is in the part of the Bible which was called "Torah" in the time of our Prophet, SAS) are referred to in the Qur'an with nothing but respect. >In view of these facts about the prophets, is it reasonable for >Lot, who had spent all his time in Sodom and Gomorra preaching chastity and >morality, to commit such a crime-adultery-which is called INCEST with his >daughters? By our law, Lot committed no crime, though the daughters may have. As to them, they may plead necessity, as they obviously did. Further, alcohol was not fobidden in Lot's time; and we also do not know what Allah had revealed regarding what we now call incest. I would have to ask my brother *when* Allah forbade incest. Yes, it is forbidden, but *when* was it forbidden? And what has not been forbidden by Allah is *lawful.* The companions of our Prophet who drank wine before the prohibition committed no sin by the act of drinking, in itself. >Is it reasonable for Lot to drink an intoxicating liquor and >become unconscious to a point which made him unaware of his evil act with >his daughters? It is impossible to perform an evil act while asleep or unconscious. Apparently our brother has no concept of fiqh. *Intention* is crucial in the judgement of an action. Now, normally, we take the performance of certain actions as intentional without regard for stated intention; this is a consequence of necessity, but the fact remains that, in essence, an unintentional action may have harmful consequences but it is not a sin. The very fact that the daughters considered it necessary to drug their father, if we accept the story, indicates that it is not a thing that he would have done if conscious. Further, it is not necessary, to conceive a child, that actual penetration take place. I will not go into details, but the daughters could have accomplished the thing without any action taking place which would be called zina if the man were conscious. Again, if the man were conscious, we would call it incest. But if a daughter were to do something like this today, we would not call it incest, and even though incest is a serious crime in, say, the United States, and it is generally prosecuted and punished severely, if the facts of a case were like what is reported the Biblical story, charges would not even be filed. Intention is essential in a criminal action, and, in this case, the daughters, the presumed victims in a matter of incest, were the alleged perpetrators, if, indeed, any sexual congress took place. And we do not know that. All we are told is that they "laid" with him. This is a common euphemism for sexual intercourse, but is not necessarily confined to that. >This episode of evil (an evil deed) by Lot is a part of >Lot's biography found in Genesis 19:30-38 in the Holy Scriptures, which is >the revealed word of God If it is true, then all people who do likewise, >i.e. practice Incest in our present time should be absolved and proclaimed >"not guilty" at the Court of Justice, because such a sexual abuse is >permitted by God or, at least concurred by HIM in his Holy Bible!! As I said, if a man today were to establish in court that the facts were as stated in the story, no competent court would convict him. There might be an exception in jurisdictions which held a person strictly responsible for failure to act responsibly due to the consumption of alcohol. But I doubt it. In that case, even the consumption of alcohol was not volitional. This matter has been discussed many times in s.r.i. It appears that Arabic Paper has not read the prior discussions, or is choosing not to answer the points raised in them. As I see it, the ignominy of this story is mostly based in a projection of Qur'anic law backwards onto what came before. Lot committed no sin; perhaps the daughters were *also* free of sin, unless we can establish that they had been forbidden to conceive children by their father; we already know that alcohol was not forbidden until much later. We elsewhere have discussed the question of Abraham's, AS, marriage to Sara, AS, who is considered by some to be his half-sister, though I find the texts unclear. It appears that this was not considered unlawful or reprehensible at the time, merely unusual. We would now call it incest, but this is after its prohibition. If all the people on earth were to die, except for two, and they were brother and sister, it is my opinion that necessity would allow their sexual relationship. Could I point out that Adam and Eve, 'alayhumma salaam, shared the same "parent."? And that their children, by our present law, would be forbidden to marry each other? AbdulraHman Lomax marjan@vom.com
This is an over all very good response by Mr. Lomax. I would like to add just one comment in regard to this above paragraph posted by arabic paper:
>Lot was a prophet; and all prophets were a special select of God to be >his messengers to the people. He equipped them with wisdom, knowledge, >chastity, and piety so as to be the best examples for their folks to >follow.
Nowhere in the Bible is Lot called a prophet. The fact that the Qur'an declares him a prophet does not mean Christians or Jews have to consider him a prophet as well. His image in the Holy Scriptures is rather ambiguous. Even though I agree with Mr. Lomax in this specific case, that if anyone is guilty then it is the daughters and not necessarily Lot, nevertheless in general his actions don't give too glorious an image in the Old Testament, yet he is given a positive evaluation in the second epistle of Peter, chapter 2, verse 7. But there he is only called "a righteous man", not a prophet.
Bible Commentary Index
Answering Islam Home Page