7:31: Do not eat excesively? or do not waste food?
-
Agreed. No one should prohibit something that is not prohibited.
My point is that too much of something or too little of something is a transgression and transgression is mentioned. The only thing is that people are different and so what may be too much or too little for someone will be the right amount for another. Thats why someone should be very careful before saying to someone your overdoing or underdoing something and the person who outright prohibits something for someone, better have rock solid reasons for doing so.
No, thats why in my other post in addition to this one, I mentioned that transgression is subject and context dependent.Don't worry about it buddy Just a misunderstanding (i think). It's why you gotta be careful before getting passionate in a discussion. Misunderstandings are common and judgements should ideally be postivie towards others. Enhances the chances of peace and lessens the chance of conflict.
Very rarely can we be 100% sure. We just have to decide whats most reasonable. Probability of truth vs. consequences of carrying out the potential truth.
I guess, but we wanna get as sure as possible which is why I post a lot of questions here.
I honestly don't think its vague. To overdo anything is to transgress and i can't think of seperate words for this. Where someone transgresses it is pretty clear IMO. Its just the scope of the word is wide but this doesn't mean its controversial. In that verse 731 overeating is used as an example of how someone could transgress. Whether the verse is also meant to include the idea of waste, im starting to think yes because by eating food your consuming it. To over eat, is to overconsume, to overconsume is to waste hence transgression.
Not true. Transgressing in this context can mean going over in "eating" and "drinking" as it never mentioned waste. It didn't say "throw things away, but don't exceed" it said "eat and drink, but don't exceed". Of course if you decide to use waste then it will refer to waste as that's a seperate meaning of the same word. Also overconsuming is NOT waste. Wasting is throwing something away. If you eat or drink something, its been put to use and thus not wasted (unless thrown up ). Also lets keep the words "transgression" and "Exceed" seperate as "transgression" usually better means breaking Gods rules (sinning" while "exceed" meanings over doing something.
Why not? I honestly think it makes sense. Do not transgress would entail that we don't give away too much, eat too much dispose of pointlessly and so on. These are covered by the notion of transgression and i don't see how this makes less sense then to narrow it to just one aspect of transgressing with food. I genuinely think it makes more sense to not narrow the notion down.
As I said "transgress" as in "Breaking God's rules"and not overdoing something. That wouldn't fit the context of 641 well as there are no forbidden fruits here to eat while 731 has alcohol and pork that is forbidden to eat (again I interpret alcohol as forbidden). But the reason I say both 731 and 641 have to use the same meaning of that word when that same word can mean "Waste" "excess" or "Transgress" is because they both use the exact same word and phrasing as each other, but of course I don't know Arabic grammar, so maybe it can cause otherwise i'd think exceed would work best (as in paying too much charity) with 641 and Transgress best with 731 (Transgress as in breaking rules as in eat and drinking forbidden stuff).
-
Agreed. No one should prohibit something that is not prohibited.
My point is that too much of something or too little of something is a transgression and transgression is mentioned. The only thing is that people are different and so what may be too much or too little for someone will be the right amount for another. Thats why someone should be very careful before saying to someone your overdoing or underdoing something and the person who outright prohibits something for someone, better have rock solid reasons for doing so.
No, thats why in my other post in addition to this one, I mentioned that transgression is subject and context dependent.Don't worry about it buddy ) Just a misunderstanding (i think). It's why you gotta be careful before getting passionate in a discussion. Misunderstandings are common and judgements should ideally be postivie towards others. Enhances the chances of peace and lessens the chance of conflict.
twitches Transgression means breaka Gods rules as in doing something that is forbidden. IT DOES NOT MEAN EXCESS IN EVERYTHING IS SINFUL!! its mentioned clearly when too much of something is forbidden like too much charity. Don't make everything haram. there is no mention whatsoever that too much of something is haram unless said otherwise. Trangression means going over the limits, but its only a sin if you go over the limits as in past the halal and into the haram.
so don't fo making remarks like that. Too much faith nor too much praying nor too much thinking is forbidden for obvious reasons, and neither is anything else that is not mentioned.
The context was clearly talking abour food and drinks NOT EVERYTHING and even so it was likely talking about doing haram in foods and drinks as in alcohol and pork and not about overdoing anything.
like seriously don't forbid things God hasn't forbid, its a sin on you. Noone one ever in history or now claimed too much of something is forbidden unless stated in the Quran!
-
twitches Transgression means breaka Gods rules as in doing something that is forbidden. IT DOES NOT MEAN EXCESS IN EVERYTHING IS SINFUL!!
I think it does. If i exceed in anything, i think i have transgressed and have broken a law of God or exceeded a limit set by God. Dont you think overdoing something is sinful? We might have different ideas on what constitutes sin.
Look at 6141
And He it is who causes gardens to grow, trellised and untrellised, and palm trees and crops of different food and olives and pomegranates, similar and dissimilar. Eat of its fruit when it yields and give its due on the day of its harvest. And be not excessive. Indeed, He does not like those who commit excess.
As your aware, here the word used is transgress. Its the same word used in 731The excess in here also refers to zakat. So clearly one can transgress in zakat (by giving too much or too little)
its mentioned clearly when too much of something is forbidden like too much charity
Ok but too much charity is transgression as suggested by 6141
Don't make everything haram.
Im not.
there is no mention whatsoever that too much of something is haram unless said otherwise
.
Im saying too much of something (anything) = transgression and we are told not too transgress.Trangression means going over the limits, but its only a sin if you go over the limits as in past the halal and into the haram.
This is your view of transgression. In my opinion that is too narrow a view of transgression. There is no controversy in saying that transgression = going over the limits. To limit it to a a few instances of overdoing is controversial IMO. Its like saying let's ignore some transgressions and label some transgressions as genuine transgressions.
Ultimately I think it might come down to this
Do we agree that transgression = going over the limits? If yes then why do we then say going over the limits on sleeping, playing music and so on is ok whilst going over the limits by eating too much or eating pork is not?
-
I think it does. If i exceed in anything, i think i have transgressed and have broken a law of God or exceeded a limit set by God. Dont you think overdoing something is sinful? We might have different ideas on what constitutes sin.
So you are saying that praying a lot, learning knowledge a lot, painting a lot, and many other things that have NOT been forbidden is a sin?
So in other words if I like God a lot, I guess i'm a sinner.
If some country invades and states "I'm here to destroy the religions of God and if anyone transgresses our plan, they are transgressors." I guess I am also sinning for trying to defend my religion.
Seeing how ridiculous what you are saying is. You are clearly taking 731's "God does not like the Transgressors" on its own to mean all types of transgressions and not the ones specifically stated in the Quran.
If that is your logic I guess we aren't allowed to be happy
"Qaroon was from among the people of Moses, but he betrayed them. And We gave him such treasures that the keys thereof were almost too heavy for the strongest person. His people said to him "Do not glee, for God does not love the gleeful."
(2876)I guess being happy is forbidden to you as you don't take entire verses on and only take a section of a verse to mean what you wish. Thus I guess we are suppose to be sad and miserable eh. Clearly 2876 is bringing up a metaphor when read together that it means one shouldn't be prideful about his riches like Qarun who was mean to his people because it got to his head.
But as 731 states
"O Children of Adam, dress nicely at every temple, and eat and drink and do not Transgress; He does not like the Transgressors." (731)
Read the verse TOGETHER. You can see he is only referring to food here and not everything.
The only times transgressions are mentioned are in reference to people who broke rules that were ALREADY mentioned such as Zina such as murder, such as eating illegal food. Not about doing something too much. Honestly don't make up things without properly studying it.
Look at 6141
And He it is who causes gardens to grow, trellised and untrellised, and palm trees and crops of different food and olives and pomegranates, similar and dissimilar. Eat of its fruit when it yields and give its due on the day of its harvest. And be not excessive. Indeed, He does not like those who commit excess.
As your aware, here the word used is transgress. Its the same word used in 731The excess in here also refers to zakat. So clearly one can transgress in zakat (by giving too much or too little)
Ok but too much charity is transgression as suggested by 6141Here is refers to only over paying Zakat that is if we take it to refer to overpaying Zakat. The Free-minds translation takes it to mean wasting the food mentioned. Regardless again its states ONLY the zakat doesn't say everything.
Im saying too much of something (anything) = transgression and we are told not too transgress.
Told not to transgress against God given laws! We are told not to eat pork so doing so means we transgressed. We are told not to pay too much charity, if we do then we have transgressed. It tells us what to do and not do and I see no mentioned ANYWHERE that transgressing things that aren't in the Quran is a sin.
This is your view of transgression. In my opinion that is too narrow a view of transgression. There is no controversy in saying that transgression = going over the limits. To limit it to a a few instances of overdoing is controversial IMO. Its like saying let's ignore some transgressions and label some transgressions as genuine transgressions.
Okay then prove it to me where it states exceeding everything that isn't in the book is a sin? He has told us what is and what isn't, are you gonna seek a judge besides God? (AKA yourself?) And this isn't just me, its unanimous and especially in this Quran-only society that we only avoid what are told to avoid. I see no ignoring of transgressions. God didn't tell me I can't sleep for 12 hours a day if I wish, God didn't tell me I can't pray to him too much, God didn't tell me I can't paint for hours on end. And yes what you say is quite controversial. Give me a verse that states that too much of anything is bad? I mean anything not just one thing ANYTHING. You can't? well too bad, cause God left nothing out of his book as he stated. If he wanted to tell us if doing too much of something is a sin he would have told us. Don't be like the traditionalists who use hadiths to make up laws that aren't in the Quran...only difference is at least they are using hadiths which they believe have divinity, you are just making up stuff that is quite dangerous and have no evidence either.
Ultimately I think it might come down to this
Do we agree that transgression = going over the limits? If yes then why do we then say going over the limits on sleeping, playing music and so on is ok whilst going over the limits by eating too much or eating pork is not?
Because God said it is a sin to eat pork and told us that excess charity or excess spending is a sin, but he NEVER told us that sleeping a lot or anything else is a sin.
Also please realize one important things
TransgressionUsually means to break God given rules (AKA what is mentioned in the quran like eating Pork)
The Transgression you are saying is better translated as "Excess" and that is what everyone who translated ones about over doing something did.They are two different meanings and you are doing a serious sin by making whats halal as haram.
Here read this article on halal and haram and you'll understand better I hope.
http//free-minds.org/halal-haram
And especially take note of what the end of the article states
"All things that are not mentioned as being Haram, are, by default, Halal.
Yes, that is how simple things are. What God did not mention as being Haram, is ALLOWED by the Almighty for His servants.
We are NOT to play the role of God and falsely claim this is Haram or that is Haram because of our personal desires. We must REMEMBER that these words may only be uttered by our Lord and Master, and that He has already spoken.
Please remember this the next time someone asks you "Is this Haram?", and tell them that if it was never mentioned by God, then no power on Earth can make it Haram.
May God guide us all to His light."
-
Peace Aryan Warrior
So you are saying that praying a lot, learning knowledge a lot, painting a lot, and many other things that have NOT been forbidden is a sin?
Do you think praying alot is the equivalent of praying excessively or praying transgressively?
I don't remember saying that doing alot of something is a transgression. i said to my understanding excess/too much, is a transgression and yes praying excessively is a transgression. because it is praying transgressively Its a bit like saying praying sinfully.
Important to note is that alot of something does not neccessarily = transgression You can have alot of something but still need more. But you can never have too much of something and need more....
So in other words if I like God a lot, I guess i'm a sinner.
No, if you like God excessively then you are a transgressor. But it may be the case that you cannot ever like God in excess. This might clarify my point of view.
If some country invades and states "I'm here to destroy the religions of God and if anyone transgresses our plan, they are transgressors." I guess I am also sinning for trying to defend my religion.
??
Seeing how ridiculous what you are saying is. You are clearly taking 731's "God does not like the Transgressors" on its own to mean all types of transgressions and not the ones specifically stated in the Quran.
Lets keep this discussion as good as possible. Suggesting that what im saying is ridiculous can potentially provoke and change the whole tone of the discussion. If I said something like your posts are ridiculous would you not be offended?
If that is your logic I guess we aren't allowed to be happy
"Qaroon was from among the people of Moses, but he betrayed them. And We gave him such treasures that the keys thereof were almost too heavy for the strongest person. His people said to him "Do not glee, for God does not love the gleeful."
(2876)I think you misunderstood my logic. In addition to that, what the people said is not the law of God even if its in the Quran.
"O Children of Adam, dress nicely at every temple, and eat and drink and do not Transgress; He does not like the Transgressors." (731)
Read the verse TOGETHER. You can see he is only referring to food here and not everything.
My point is that this is one example of transgression. We are told that the God does not like the transgressors. Il get back to this point at the end of this post.
The only times transgressions are mentioned are in reference to people who broke rules that were ALREADY mentioned such as Zina such as murder, such as eating illegal food. Not about doing something too much. Honestly don't make up things without properly studying it.
There is a chance that Im wrong and a chance that Im right or a chance that we're both wrong or a chance that your right. If im right, how bad would your accusation of me making things up look? So make no accusations that are negative. Their not needed. Just engage in the discussion. Its better that way.
It tells us what to do and not do and I see no mentioned ANYWHERE that transgressing things that aren't in the Quran is a sin.
God didn't tell me I can't sleep for 12 hours a day if I wish, God didn't tell me I can't pray to him too much, God didn't tell me I can't paint for hours on end.
Nor did I. But its pretty clear that the God said that it does not like the transgressors.
Give me a verse that states that too much of anything is bad? I mean anything not just one thing ANYTHING. You can't? well too bad,
Give me a chance.....
Ok this example might be useful
Fahisha is a transgression. Fahisha can entail many actions. All the actions that can be fahisha are not mentioned in the Quran. There are about two examples of fahisha given in the Quran (i think).
Fahisha is mentioned in the Quran. We have a notion of what is fahisha and all possible acts that entail fahisha. NowShould we consider only the two or three examples of fahisha in the Quran to be the only instances of genuine fahisha or should we literally say that fahisha is prohibted and then to engage in a discussion about what could be fahisha and why.
If I understand you correctly, your reasoning suggests that we are allowed to commit acts that we think are somewhat fashisha so long as it is not one of the examples given in the Quran in relation to fahisha. Will you hold this view???
"All things that are not mentioned as being Haram, are, by default, Halal.
I think I am a strong advocate when it comes to the view that nothing is prohibited unless entailed by the Quran appropriately and adequately. It was an important point of my defence in another discussion I was having a while ago. Its ironic that I should be accused of going against this principle.
Peace
-
Alright... here we go in the endless flame war.
Peace Aryan Warrior
Peace
Do you think praying alot is the equivalent of praying excessively or praying transgressively?
I don't remember saying that doing alot of something is a transgression. i said to my understanding excess/too much, is a transgression and yes praying excessively is a transgression. because it is praying transgressively Its a bit like saying praying sinfully.
Important to note is that alot of something does not neccessarily = transgression You can have alot of something but still need more. But you can never have too much of something and need more....
No, if you like God excessively then you are a transgressor. But it may be the case that you cannot ever like God in excess. This might clarify my point of view.twiches so worship of God is a sin to you now... if done in excess... sigh... I love how people have forgotten that this religion isn't suppose to be a burden and yet you make it seem as such.
Lets keep this discussion as good as possible. Suggesting that what im saying is ridiculous can potentially provoke and change the whole tone of the discussion. If I said something like your posts are ridiculous would you not be offended?
You already have offended me when you said praying excessively to God is a sin...
I think you misunderstood my logic. In addition to that, what the people said is not the law of God even if its in the Quran.
And yet God used it as an example. God doesn't lie, so why would he put this in there as a great example against Qaruns pride in money.
My point is that this is one example of transgression. We are told that the God does not like the transgressors. Il get back to this point at the end of this post.
If you read it with the whole context you can see he means it to that case and that "transgressor" that God doesn't like are those that go against his laws AKA sin such as Zina. I hardly cannot believe that a just God would hate someone who who enjoys his lawful things a bit too much.
Nor did I. But its pretty clear that the God said that it does not like the transgressors.
Read the above.
Give me a chance.....
Ok this example might be useful
Fahisha is a transgression. Fahisha can entail many actions. All the actions that can be fahisha are not mentioned in the Quran. There are about two examples of fahisha given in the Quran (i think).
Fahisha is mentioned in the Quran. We have a notion of what is fahisha and all possible acts that entail fahisha. NowShould we consider only the two or three examples of fahisha in the Quran to be the only instances of genuine fahisha or should we literally say that fahisha is prohibted and then to engage in a discussion about what could be fahisha and why.
If I understand you correctly, your reasoning suggests that we are allowed to commit acts that we think are somewhat fashisha so long as it is not one of the examples given in the Quran in relation to fahisha. Will you hold this view???
hoho you decided to dig up something like fahisha against me. Alright let me answer this.
First off we got three verses and they go as followed
-
?Do not marry the women who were previously married to your fathers-existing marriages are exempted, for it is a fahisha, and an abominable act.? (4/22),
-
?Lot said to his people, ?You commit such an fahisha; no one in the world has done it before!? (7/80)
-
?Do not go near Zina, for it is a Fahisha and an evil path.? (17/32)
-" Do not marry what your fathers had married from the women, except what has already been done. It is fahisha, abhorrence, and a bad path. Forbidden for you are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your fathers' sisters, your mothers' sisters, the daughters of your brother, and the daughters of your sister, your foster mothers who suckled you, your sisters from suckling, the mothers of your wives, and your step-daughters residing in your homes from your wives which you have already consummated the marriage with; if you have not consummated the marriage then there is no sin upon you; and the wives of your sons that are from your seed, and that you join between two sisters except what has already been done. God is Forgiving, Compassionate." (422-23)
You may say it doesn't cover everything but actually it DOES cover everything. It states not to go near Zina thus this means intercourse, foreplay and all related sexual acts with someone else. It also forbids homosexuality, so that is done too. As well it forbids incest. Thus thats everything that one can possibly think is fahisha.
Also thank you for bringing up fahisha as that called my nerves a bit about this topic as I feel even more sure as I took notice as to how well God has indeed covered fahisha.
Thus God fully explained it so don't try to use that as a hardball against me. Try again, find a verse that explains that all excessive things are a sin. Reading the Quran excessively a sin? is seeing your children excessively a sin? is doing rightous deed excessively a sin? Still sounds quite farfetched and quite burdensome for a religion that is suppose to be burdenless.
I think I am a strong advocate when it comes to the view that nothing is prohibited unless entailed by the Quran appropriately and adequately. It was an important point of my defence in another discussion I was having a while ago. Its ironic that I should be accused of going against this principle.
Peace
Well you are saying stuff that aren't mentioned in the Quran...much like how the Sunnis and Shias do where they claim music is illegal.
-
-
twiches so worship of God is a sin to you now... if done in excess... sigh... I love how people have forgotten that this religion isn't suppose to be a burden and yet you make it seem as such.
sighs if done in excess yes. My point is that the word excess automatically renders it a sin. The reason this may seem absurd to you is because you don't believe that worship could happen in excess. I am more inclined towards this idea also but not certain about it. It may be that you could worship alot, but it never be enough but this means that you could never worship in excess so transgrssion does not apply to worship of the God.
You already have offended me when you said praying excessively to God is a sin...
I didn't intend offense. Either I was too careless in my post or you take offense too easily. In case the fault is mine, I apologise, i meant no offense.
And yet God used it as an example. God doesn't lie, so why would he put this in there as a great example against Qaruns pride in money.
There are other possible reasons but i won't go into it as it might distract and there are more important points to discuss at the moment. If you think not, then we can discuss this point further. But please see my post first and then decide
I hardly cannot believe that a just God would hate someone who who enjoys his lawful things a bit too much.
Hate is too strong a word. The level of disaproval and dislike would surely depend on the nature of the transgression and its intensity.
First off we got three verses and they go as followed
-
?Do not marry the women who were previously married to your fathers-existing marriages are exempted, for it is a fahisha, and an abominable act.? (4/22),
-
?Lot said to his people, ?You commit such an fahisha; no one in the world has done it before!? (7/80)
-
?Do not go near Zina, for it is a Fahisha and an evil path.? (17/32)
-" Do not marry what your fathers had married from the women, except what has already been done. It is fahisha, abhorrence, and a bad path. Forbidden for you are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your fathers' sisters, your mothers' sisters, the daughters of your brother, and the daughters of your sister, your foster mothers who suckled you, your sisters from suckling, the mothers of your wives, and your step-daughters residing in your homes from your wives which you have already consummated the marriage with; if you have not consummated the marriage then there is no sin upon you; and the wives of your sons that are from your seed, and that you join between two sisters except what has already been done. God is Forgiving, Compassionate." (422-23)
You may say it doesn't cover everything but actually it DOES cover everything. It states not to go near Zina thus this means intercourse, foreplay and all related sexual acts with someone else. It also forbids homosexuality, so that is done too. As well it forbids incest. Thus thats everything that one can possibly think is fahisha.
How would you include the following
Fetishes
Pleasuring animals
Sex with the deadI do believe that it covers everything since i take the quran to be complete. But my understanding is that as humans we have some guideline of what fahisha is in our reasoning and that Quran prohitbits fahisha. Again I think there is really mild fahisha to really extreme fahisha. The judgement is on the individual on what is fahisha (with the exception of what is explicitly used as examples). Similar with transgression. I doubt that this would be like adding to the book or setting oneself up as a god in addition to the God....
Also a side question, would you accept being gay as fahisha but not being a lesbian?
Thus God fully explained it so don't try to use that as a hardball against me. Try again, find a verse that explains that all excessive things are a sin. Reading the Quran excessively a sin? is seeing your children excessively a sin? is doing rightous deed excessively a sin? Still sounds quite farfetched and quite burdensome for a religion that is suppose to be burdenless.
Reading alot of the Quran is not a sin provided it is not excessive. Same with seeing your children. Being righteous is the surest thing IMO that can't be ever transgressed in. Since righteoussness entails that one is not transgressive, it implies that transgressing in rightousness is like saying you can transgress in not being transgressive.
Well you are saying stuff that aren't mentioned in the Quran...much like how the Sunnis and Shias do where they claim music is illegal.
Thats what you think (and you may be right or wrong. God knows but not you or I) There is no certaintity yet for us. So lets discuss without such assertions.
Thus God fully explained it so don't try to use that as a hardball against me.
Its just a disagreement on how the God fully explained it not whether the God fully explained or not.
Peace
-
-
sighs if done in excess yes. My point is that the word excess automatically renders it a sin. The reason this may seem absurd to you is because you don't believe that worship could happen in excess. I am more inclined towards this idea also but not certain about it. It may be that you could worship alot, but it never be enough but this means that you could never worship in excess so transgrssion does not apply to worship of the God.
Peace
Again I don't believe anything done in excess unless otherwise stated is a sin but you say your aren't sure? Seems you are indeed quite open. I'll admit that what you have posted about transgression also made me do a lot of research and thinking about the situation too, so glad to hear that we are both indeed thinking and not being stubborn
I didn't intend offense. Either I was too careless in my post or you take offense too easily. In case the fault is mine, I apologise, i meant no offense.
Don't worry, I was kind of hot headed yesterday even though the idea is a bit odd to me but yeah don't worry
There are other possible reasons but i won't go into it as it might distract and there are more important points to discuss at the moment. If you think not, then we can discuss this point further. But please see my post first and then decide
we'll return to this when or if needed.
Hate is too strong a word. The level of disaproval and dislike would surely depend on the nature of the transgression and its intensity.
By your logic, he "doesn't love" ALL people who do anything in excess, thus even one who worships him in excess is not loved, which really doesn't sound like something from a just God.
How would you include the following
Fetishes
Pleasuring animals
Sex with the deadFetishes... that would I assume fall into the area of self-pleasure AKA masturbation and there is a whole debate on that as I saw elsewhere on the forums before and I am one to not consider it lewdness especially since it didn't have a single mention in the Quran. Its yourself, so don't considering yourself as lewdness.
sex with animals and sex with the dead are still Zina as Zina means unlawful sex and since you can't marry an animal nor the dead as they aren't listed amongst those you can marry. Even so such things such as treatment of animals are also linked to this as well as hurting your own body considering you will likely catch some random disease from this.
I do believe that it covers everything since i take the quran to be complete. But my understanding is that as humans we have some guideline of what fahisha is in our reasoning and that Quran prohitbits fahisha. Again I think there is really mild fahisha to really extreme fahisha. The judgement is on the individual on what is fahisha (with the exception of what is explicitly used as examples). Similar with transgression. I doubt that this would be like adding to the book or setting oneself up as a god in addition to the God....
Also a side question, would you accept being gay as fahisha but not being a lesbian?
Fahisha is fully explained to us in my opinion so I don't see any thing not covered. 100% cover unlike transgression which I believe only covers otherwise we'd be told not to transgress anything.
I also say lesbian falls under fahisha as because what Lot's people did was homosexuality and thus the idea that its still the same sex covers that too as well as covers coming close to Zina as they are still sexually pleasuring each other.
Reading alot of the Quran is not a sin provided it is not excessive. Same with seeing your children. Being righteous is the surest thing IMO that can't be ever transgressed in. Since righteoussness entails that one is not transgressive, it implies that transgressing in rightousness is like saying you can transgress in not being transgressive.
By your logic, being rightous excessively is a sin then as you said as long as it simply has the word "transgress" it means it in every little case. Thus why the idea that transgress refers to everything and not the context in matter doesn't work, especially considering how just God is and how complete the Quran is.
Thats what you think (and you may be right or wrong. God knows but not you or I) There is no certaintity yet for us. So lets discuss without such assertions.
Its just a disagreement on how the God fully explained it not whether the God fully explained or not.Peace
God said he fully explained everything thus he has told us the "limits" such as excess charity being bad but never to say sleeping.
Peace
-
Again I don't believe anything done in excess unless otherwise stated is a sin but you say your aren't sure? Seems you are indeed quite open. I'll admit that what you have posted about transgression also made me do a lot of research and thinking about the situation too, so glad to hear that we are both indeed thinking and not being stubborn
I hope you find me not stubborn. I'd hate to think that I am. At the moment the only thing i can be certain of as not being possible to transgress in is righteousness.
On the issue of transgressing praying or worship here is why i think it is possible to transgress in them
Say you worship God 24 hours a day to the extent that you forget to eat and drink. At times you pass out and then when you regain consciousness you go back into worship. You then die since you were so preoccupied with worship that you forgot to eat and drink.
Would you consider this a transgression in worship? Would it not be better if the preoccupation was such that he ate then continued or perhaps slept and relaxed a bit effectively since they may result in a higher quality of worship as opposed to just time of worship.Now for everything a hypothetical scenario of its transgression is possible except righteoussness. Thats my current point of view.
Don't worry, I was kind of hot headed yesterday even though the idea is a bit odd to me but yeah don't worry
Thanks
By your logic, he "doesn't love" ALL people who do anything in excess, thus even one who worships him in excess is not loved, which really doesn't sound like something from a just God.
The way i view it is like a spectrum. Say person X was loved by God by....i don't know, lets call it love points (LP) and X's actions and chracter have him at 23 LP with the God. Now let's say he commits a very small transgression (he eats more than he should have on two occasions) now this results in some dislike which naturally takes away from the LP. But because its a small transgression, its also a small amount of dislike.
So we get something like this 23-0.5=22.5 So given that there is small dislike from the God regarding X's transgression but X is alreay got 23 (LP) based on his character and actions, X is still liked/loved by the God even though he is disliked a very small amount from his transgression.By your logic, he "doesn't love" ALL people who do anything in excess, thus even one who worships him in excess is not loved, which really doesn't sound like something from a just God.
I currently think it difficult to transgress in worship but if someone's worship so excessive and extreme that they ended up not seeing their children or contributing to society and so on, then its safe to say that this person has got less LP then he would have if he had done things differently.
So with this kind of reasoning regarding the nature of transgression in the scriptue, we get something like the greater transgressions (rape, murder and so on) incur greater dislike such that it could potentially put someone at -23 LP where as before they were on +43 LP
Fetishes... that would I assume fall into the area of self-pleasure AKA masturbation and there is a whole debate on that as I saw elsewhere on the forums before and I am one to not consider it lewdness especially since it didn't have a single mention in the Quran. Its yourself, so don't considering yourself as lewdness.
Lusting after animals is a potential fetish, I think this is a pretty clear case of transgression in the form of fahisha. This is just my point of view though. I don't have the fetish and those with it may be justified in having it and thus using it for their pleasure is ok in the sight of God since i cant understand their point of view.
sex with animals and sex with the dead are still Zina as Zina means unlawful sex and since you can't marry an animal nor the dead as they aren't listed amongst those you can marry. Even so such things such as treatment of animals are also linked to this as well as hurting your own body considering you will likely catch some random disease from this.
Thats if you believe sex to be exclusive to marriage. I don't. i've disucssed this before in depth. Its not a clear issue, its controversial. Whilst some take the view that it is exclusive to marriage, others may not. I don't because from the way i've understood the scripture and reasoned, thats how it appears to me.
But check it out. If you find an explicit verse that prohibits or makes sex exclusive to marriage, please let me know. As we are both surely after the truth of what is the best sort of conduct regarding the matter. I'm planning on posting a summary of the debate on sex before marriage or outsied of marriage at some point. It might make your research easier on this, that is if you choose to research the idea of sex not being exclusive to marriage.
Another issue is where do you draw the line from what is sex and what is not sex. So lets say pleasuring the dead. Is it then acceptable? Would this not be transgression in the form of fahisha. Its clear in our reasoning IMO that it is. It may not have been used as an example in the Quran but the Quran is clear in saying that we should stay away from fahisha. Same with transgression.
This is why we need to use our reason. The scripture is complete but it still demands that we use our reason to uphold it.
Even so such things such as treatment of animals are also linked to this as well as hurting your own body considering you will likely catch some random disease from this.
So what would you call it? Transgresion? Fahisha? what other options do we have? I think everything is entailed by transgression but this sort of act is self-harm (transgression against the self) and a fahisha because intuitively our reason suggests that this is unnatural and excesive regarding sexual pleasure.
God said he fully explained everything thus he has told us the "limits" such as excess charity being bad but never to say sleeping.
Yes. We are told to race towards the good deeds, work righteoussness not trangress and so on. BUT does the Quran cover every instance of good deed? There are some examples yes but it is not exhaustive of all the good deeds that are possible in this world. Thats where we are given the reason to distinguish good deeds and transgressions and fahisha and all other like terms as covered by the Quran.
With this in mind, can we really afford to limit transgresion to just the few exmaple as given in the Quran?
-
I hope you find me not stubborn. I'd hate to think that I am. At the moment the only thing i can be certain of as not being possible to transgress in is righteousness.
On the issue of transgressing praying or worship here is why i think it is possible to transgress in them
Say you worship God 24 hours a day to the extent that you forget to eat and drink. At times you pass out and then when you regain consciousness you go back into worship. You then die since you were so preoccupied with worship that you forgot to eat and drink.
Would you consider this a transgression in worship? Would it not be better if the preoccupation was such that he ate then continued or perhaps slept and relaxed a bit effectively since they may result in a higher quality of worship as opposed to just time of worship.Now for everything a hypothetical scenario of its transgression is possible except righteoussness. Thats my current point of view.
That would not apply to the sin defined as "transgression" as you say and rather to the other sin known as "causing your own doom" as they have completely stopped everything and are dying at this point. Transgression has nothing to do with it as a person could do that for one day but they haven't adopted that as doing it forever. It's not like its "poison" where it would cause your instant doom. Thus the transgression you speak of has no play in this.
And again where did you find this detail on righteousness not being transgressive? clearly you are at this point just saying what you feel is right and you aren't God to know such things. Thus if you say all transgressions are a sin, then all would be including that. Thus why its only based on what has clearly been told to us. Anything that starts causing our doom is a whole seperate sin and not amongst the things told to us.
The way i view it is like a spectrum. Say person X was loved by God by....i don't know, lets call it love points (LP) and X's actions and chracter have him at 23 LP with the God. Now let's say he commits a very small transgression (he eats more than he should have on two occasions) now this results in some dislike which naturally takes away from the LP. But because its a small transgression, its also a small amount of dislike.
So we get something like this 23-0.5=22.5 So given that there is small dislike from the God regarding X's transgression but X is alreay got 23 (LP) based on his character and actions, X is still liked/loved by the God even though he is disliked a very small amount from his transgression.Again you are talking about stuff you don't know. First that still doesn't sound justful in regards to God to dislike a person for excess in worship. Lose these love points cause he worshipped God too much? oh please... where does a point system come here? there is only a sin vs righteous point system mentioned by God. Thus LP would be a sin and probably bigger sin then normal considering God said he doesn't like those types of people. Third God is infinite in his mercy and justice and is without a mistake. He has clearly stated that the Quran is perfect and covers all bases and has told us what is a transgression clearly. Thus if a person sleeps 12 hours a day and isn't breaking any rules in the Quran by doing so, then he isn't sinning as sleeping is not considered as transgression. Course if he did sleep alot and somehow sinned in some other fashion, then he would be guilty for that thing he is missing not the oversleeping as that is never mentioned.
I currently think it difficult to transgress in worship but if someone's worship so excessive and extreme that they ended up not seeing their children or contributing to society and so on, then its safe to say that this person has got less LP then he would have if he had done things differently.
So with this kind of reasoning regarding the nature of transgression in the scriptue, we get something like the greater transgressions (rape, murder and so on) incur greater dislike such that it could potentially put someone at -23 LP where as before they were on +43 LP
First off don't use the LP system as that has no Quranic basis or mention of it. Now continuing if they don't contribute to society (as in charity or whatever that is required) then they have sinned in regards to not contributing to society NOT transgression in worship as that is never mentioned as a sin.
Lusting after animals is a potential fetish, I think this is a pretty clear case of transgression in the form of fahisha. This is just my point of view though. I don't have the fetish and those with it may be justified in having it and thus using it for their pleasure is ok in the sight of God since i cant understand their point of view.
Lusting first off is something you think or fantasize. If you don't put it into action, then there is no harm and there is no mention of it ever being harmful. Course if you put it into action, then that would fall into close to Zina or simply Zina and thus still is covered by the definition given to us of fahisha.
Thats if you believe sex to be exclusive to marriage. I don't. i've disucssed this before in depth. Its not a clear issue, its controversial. Whilst some take the view that it is exclusive to marriage, others may not. I don't because from the way i've understood the scripture and reasoned, thats how it appears to me.
But check it out. If you find an explicit verse that prohibits or makes sex exclusive to marriage, please let me know. As we are both surely after the truth of what is the best sort of conduct regarding the matter. I'm planning on posting a summary of the debate on sex before marriage or outsied of marriage at some point. It might make your research easier on this, that is if you choose to research the idea of sex not being exclusive to marriage.
The problem is that you don't accept the word Zina to mean both fornification and adultry which is basic Arabic and both ancient and modern versions and I believe that is what Zina means. If we are not in agreeance to that, we might be coming to a stand still.
Another issue is where do you draw the line from what is sex and what is not sex. So lets say pleasuring the dead. Is it then acceptable? Would this not be transgression in the form of fahisha. Its clear in our reasoning IMO that it is. It may not have been used as an example in the Quran but the Quran is clear in saying that we should stay away from fahisha. Same with transgression.
This is why we need to use our reason. The scripture is complete but it still demands that we use our reason to uphold it.
I already explained pleasuring the dead is zina or close to zina as you aren't allowed to have sex with it considering its marriable and thus still covered under fahisha as defined in the Quran. Thus if one has sex with a corpse, then they have done the sin of fahisha that is clearly described under the section of closer to zina or if simply the sin of Zina if intercourse happened and not transgression as its covered under fahisha and zina not transgression.
So what would you call it? Transgresion? Fahisha? what other options do we have? I think everything is entailed by transgression but this sort of act is self-harm (transgression against the self) and a fahisha because intuitively our reason suggests that this is unnatural and excesive regarding sexual pleasure.
Yes. We are told to race towards the good deeds, work righteoussness not trangress and so on. BUT does the Quran cover every instance of good deed? There are some examples yes but it is not exhaustive of all the good deeds that are possible in this world. Thats where we are given the reason to distinguish good deeds and transgressions and fahisha and all other like terms as covered by the Quran.
With this in mind, can we really afford to limit transgresion to just the few exmaple as given in the Quran?
Sex with animals is zina as you can't marry animals and fahisha if you get only close to Zina and at all times mistreatment of animals. The only that type of transgression it is are breaking Gods set rules.
The problem is that you are heavily misusing the world "transgression". Transgression means breakings Gods laws. For example say you are told that you cannot walk into a military base. If you walk into it, you have transgressed AKA done what they told you not to do. If they didn't say you can't walk into the military base, then walking into the military base is allowed and you are not punished by the law. Thus its the same case. What you aren't told isn't a transgression (AKA breaking the laws of God) isn't a sin.
Also you are officially picking at straws if you are bringing up the fact that good deeds aren't covered fully to support your definition of transgression. Good deeds are by itself defined as doing stuff that are good for the world. Transgression simply means as said above, breaking what has been told for you not to break not everything little thing in existence. Fahisha is completely covered as i've said too so there really is no reason to try to pick at that as your support either.
The law tells us not to randomly walk into a military base and if we did it would be a transgression and if they didn't as the law has stated it wouldn't be a transgression.
God told us not to kill people or overpay on charity and if we did it would a transgression and if for what he hasn't told us then there is nothing stopping from doing it.
It's simple logic and quite clear.
-
And again where did you find this detail on righteousness not being transgressive? clearly you are at this point just saying what you feel is right and you aren't God to know such things
Its logic. Im not the God to claim 1+1=2 but the logic given to me strongly suggests that I believe in it.
How can you transgress in Righteousness when it demands that you do not transgress? A complete righteous character would not transgress since it would be an instance of unrighteoussness on his part. Similarly a moderate person would not transgress. Whilst there may be instances where he transgresses he cannot ultimately become transgressive in his moderateness which is entailed by righteousness.Thats why I said it would be like saying transgression in being un-transgressive.
Do you still think you can transgress in righteousness?That would not apply to the sin defined as "transgression" as you say and rather to the other sin known as "causing your own doom" as they have completely stopped everything and are dying at this point
Ok is it a sin? If yes is Sin not the breaking of God's laws or going against the God's limits? If yes then is that not trangression?
Third God is infinite in his mercy and justice
Now your just saying stuff. Could you back that up with a verse?
Again you are talking about stuff you don't know. First that still doesn't sound justful in regards to God to dislike a person for excess in worship. .
I disagree. I believe excess (transgressive) worship = sin = dislike/disapproval from the God.....that is provided that excess worship is possible (and I think that it is)
Lose these love points cause he worshipped God too much? oh please... where does a point system come here? there is only a sin vs righteous point system mentioned by God. Thus LP would be a sin and probably bigger sin then normal considering God said he doesn't like those types of people
First off don't use the LP system as that has no Quranic basis or mention of it.
I didn't say it does, there may be some implications but there is nothing explicit in the Quran that says this. I said this is my understanding of how we are judged in terms of dislike/disaroval from the God. We are told even an atom's weight is considered when we are judged so from this i decided that ultimately Good and bad (since it is also said that the Good deeds wipe out the bad) have different degrees of value and so the greater the good commited against the evil, the more likely one is to be approved of or be like by the God. Would you have it any other way from a Quranic basis??
Lusting first off is something you think or fantasize. If you don't put it into action, then there is no harm and there is no mention of it ever being harmful.
Ok I think its a sin but I can understand why you'd think its not. There is no explicit verse in the Quran that would make it a sin. But IMO the women lusted after may a) Not want to be lusted after b) Have boyfriends, fiances or husbands that don't want their companion to be lusted after by some other individual. There considerations IMO make me think that its wrong to lust after other women but I cannot fully back this up with the Scripture unless I claim that it falls under Fahisha. I believe that it does but thats just my opnion based on a) and b).
Also in 235-6 we are told to restrain our gaze. Though this does not say that to not restrain is a sin, it at the very least makes explicit that we should not lust after women who are not of Ma malekat aymunkum or zawjin relation to us.
So even if we disagree about whether lusting/looking at women is a fahisha or not, we can surely agree that it is better not to fantasize or look at women.
The problem is that you don't accept the word Zina to mean both fornification and adultry
I do. But the problem is that your understanding of fornication differs to me. Fornication IMO is sex with anyone that falls outside of the Ma malekat aymunkum and zawj categories. For you I think that fornication is just sex outside of marriage (zawj) but 235-6 may suggest otherwise.
I already explained pleasuring the dead is zina or close to zina as you aren't allowed to have sex with it considering its marriable and thus still covered under fahisha as defined in the Quran. Thus if one has sex with a corpse, then they have done the sin of fahisha that is clearly described under the section of closer to zina or if simply the sin of Zina if intercourse happened and not transgression as its covered under fahisha and zina not transgression.
Ok I've changed my mind on this. I agree with you. It is a fahisha or if its full on sex, then it is zina since it falls outside of the zawj and Ma malekat aymunkum categories.
Also you are officially picking at straws if you are bringing up the fact that good deeds aren't covered fully to support your definition of transgression. Good deeds are by itself defined as doing stuff that are good for the world
Thats my whole point. Transgression is also of a similar nature. Its self explanatory.
Fahisha is completely covered as i've said too so there really is no reason to try to pick at that as your support either.
Ok my past examples were poor. How about this. Flirting with someone who's already taken. Whats that, a fahisha? Is it mentioned in the Quran?
Raping your zawj? Its not zina. You'd argue its not a trangression, but its clearly wrong. But on what grounds? How can we link this back to the Quran?
-
Hey sorry been busy for the last while. Here is my reply
Its logic. Im not the God to claim 1+1=2 but the logic given to me strongly suggests that I believe in it.
How can you transgress in Righteousness when it demands that you do not transgress? A complete righteous character would not transgress since it would be an instance of unrighteoussness on his part. Similarly a moderate person would not transgress. Whilst there may be instances where he transgresses he cannot ultimately become transgressive in his moderateness which is entailed by righteousness.Thats why I said it would be like saying transgression in being un-transgressive.
Do you still think you can transgress in righteousness?That is your definition of righteousness and logic. A murderer will claim that he used his logic to do what is right and righteous when we clearly would say no. Hadithists think differently and the idea of Quran only is to follow what is strictly stated by the book. God hasn't mentioned to us that we can't watch TV, eat a turnip, or buy a video game therefore we are allowed.
The definition of a transgression is "A violation of a law, command, or duty" a law, command or duty are things that are told to us before hand and I see nothing involving doing something too much unless stated otherwise.
The definition of a good deed is simply doing something good for the world and that doesn't need explanation as any idiot knows what that means as the definition goes "Good deeds are spontaneous acts of kindness, accommodation, generosity, benevolence, charity, assistance, help, sympathy or aid, all performed with the simple intention of being helpful and no expectation for compensation of any kind."
Thus don't make up stuff please nor spin things around like so.
Ok is it a sin? If yes is Sin not the breaking of God's laws or going against the God's limits? If yes then is that not trangression?
Gods limits are preset just as the law presets laws we can't break otherwise we are allowed to do just as such.
Now your just saying stuff. Could you back that up with a verse?
The many many MANY times God says He IS "The Merciful".
I disagree. I believe excess (transgressive) worship = sin = dislike/disapproval from the God.....that is provided that excess worship is possible (and I think that it is)
Still unjust no matter what for one to simply worship God to much and for Him to dislike the person as such. God is merciful and just and therefore why it makes no sense for him to judge us on something he hasn't told us.
I didn't say it does, there may be some implications but there is nothing explicit in the Quran that says this. I said this is my understanding of how we are judged in terms of dislike/disaroval from the God. We are told even an atom's weight is considered when we are judged so from this i decided that ultimately Good and bad (since it is also said that the Good deeds wipe out the bad) have different degrees of value and so the greater the good commited against the evil, the more likely one is to be approved of or be like by the God. Would you have it any other way from a Quranic basis??
No, you are right on this corner but of course I never doubted that it was good vs bad deeds anyways
Ok I think its a sin but I can understand why you'd think its not. There is no explicit verse in the Quran that would make it a sin. But IMO the women lusted after may a) Not want to be lusted after b) Have boyfriends, fiances or husbands that don't want their companion to be lusted after by some other individual. There considerations IMO make me think that its wrong to lust after other women but I cannot fully back this up with the Scripture unless I claim that it falls under Fahisha. I believe that it does but thats just my opnion based on a) and b).
Also in 235-6 we are told to restrain our gaze. Though this does not say that to not restrain is a sin, it at the very least makes explicit that we should not lust after women who are not of Ma malekat aymunkum or zawjin relation to us.
So even if we disagree about whether lusting/looking at women is a fahisha or not, we can surely agree that it is better not to fantasize or look at women.
This is what is in our minds... sometimes we can't control such thoughts and quite frankly God has NEVER said we will be judged for our thoughts and only for our intentions and beliefs when it comes to the mind.
Like seriously OH WOW you are saying we can't think of people because it will make them all sad and whatever. You know what, there are ALWAYS people and not just for lustful reasons but for many things that they don't want to be thought of. Many of us wanted many of these dictators dead and imaged how horribly he should die too but of course THEY don't want such thoughts to be made. Well guess what, God has given us the ability to imagine and think as long as we don't put it into action and there is not a single Quranic verse that forbids it.
The woman doesn't want us to think sexually about them? Well we have needs and urges as humans and designed as such to have these, so too bad. This religion isn't a religion of monks or Christians that forbids lustful thoughts. Heck there is even a verse about how women are to be appraoched lustfully rather than men
"You are approaching the men out of lust instead of the women! No, you are an ignorant people!" (2755)
If lust was such a big deal like in some of those monk-like religions then sex for other than the reason of children would be forbidden. Hell you are calling thoughts as Lewdness/Fahisha but that is what you take it as when many don't as its simply just thoughts. Some out there consider Foreplay as dirty and shouldn't be done, and same goes with certain other sex positions. So by your logic ALL manmade ideas of something being icky or dirty is a sin and that has literally no basis in this religion and the only things that are forbidden are what is stated in the book that has been described as complete.
You bring up lowering your gaze, which is a physical action of not looking and doesn't mention lust or thoughts of it whatsoever in it and as i've stated above with verse 2755, lusting after women is considering okay as long as we don't go into the sin of Zina or close to Zina or the other mentioned things of fahisha. Lust has never been condemned once in the Quran and only the actions that happen out of it are condemned like Zina.
The verses of 2430-31 are protection and privacy NOT about lusting. We are told to cover our privates and for women to also cover their breast and that we should not stare at those hidden bits cause privates are shameful according to 726 and that the parts of a women told to cover are beauty that can get one to become so uncontrolled over their lust that they might rape her. It doesn't state to cover the hair, the arms or parts other than the breasts and privates just as it doesn't state to cover any part of a man other than privates cause the chest of a man is considered quite "sexy" to women and the arms and hair of a women are considered quite "hot" for a man yet those weren't told to be covered if lust was the issue here and only the parts that are described as shameful and that will lead to a high amount of lust that may lead to forbidden actions like privates and breasts. Afterall the people the women are allowed to show it too are people she is safe with and has nothing to do with lust as the husband and the MMA can still lust over her naked body. Some say simply looking at any ways of a woman in lust and vise versa is what lower your gaze means yet if that was the case, why only cover the shameful parts and the breasts? Its just as the definition goes in western laws where the reason women and men are told to cover their privates and breasts are cause it is both very shameful and can REALLY entice someone. Afterall if it was about lust then why is there no mention of not being allowed to hug a women? Everytime I hug some women, I get slightly enticed cause of how they feel and simply being a woman.
Thus its only extreme lust that leads to the unlawful action that is sinful, thus in Islam we are to control our lust but there is nothing on not having it at all considering this is how God made us. Its like when arguing with those traditionalists over hair and you bring up that if hair is to be covered then why did God let women have hair in the first place? Thus don't make up random stuff like thinking lust is a sin. You are making the religion that isn't suppose to be a burden quite VERY burdensome and hard and I don't agree that isn't wrong to fantasize. It's not affecting them nor is it leading to zina or anything as long as I keep control.
I do. But the problem is that your understanding of fornication differs to me. Fornication IMO is sex with anyone that falls outside of the Ma malekat aymunkum and zawj categories. For you I think that fornication is just sex outside of marriage (zawj) but 235-6 may suggest otherwise.
Oh sorry, I forgot about MMA XD I never mind, moving on
Ok I've changed my mind on this. I agree with you. It is a fahisha or if its full on sex, then it is zina since it falls outside of the zawj and Ma malekat aymunkum categories.
Sounds good, moving on we are making progress
Thats my whole point. Transgression is also of a similar nature. Its self explanatory.
No its not as i've explained the definitions above of what both Transgression and Good Deed are. A Transgression can only be on a law. Thus if no law is set, then there is no transgression and damn well don't see a transgression for many things that you believe.
Ok my past examples were poor. How about this. Flirting with someone who's already taken. Whats that, a fahisha? Is it mentioned in the Quran?
Raping your zawj? Its not zina. You'd argue its not a trangression, but its clearly wrong. But on what grounds? How can we link this back to the Quran?
Flirting is not fahisha. You are making up laws now and throwing some random man made things together. If thats happening, that is happening big deal. That is how some women end up liking another guy more or vice versa cause they simply do. I see nothing wrong with that and is definitely isn't mentioned. But I guess you wanna nitpick, thus I guess you would probably throw anything that some random person in the backwaters of the world called as "dirty" as fahisha including foreplay, spanish nuts, use of condoms and birth control, love, shaking hands as some of the traditionalists like to do so using hadiths, and many MANY more. God has given what is rightly dirty and wrong and that is incest, close to Zina, homosexuality and modern society as a whole clearly understands that too by simple logic and doesn't nitpick as you are.
Raping your wife falls under treatment of people/aggression and probably a hefty version of it too considering the act thus we already got that covered in the Quran, so don't think that was a loop hole argument to prove your point.
Anyways, you REALLY need to reevaluate things. God has said the Quran is complete. Bringing up random stuff that aren't mentioned in the Quran or nitpicking isn't too different from hadiths... its your hadiths of saying things not mentioned in the Quran. Traditionalists argue that "obey the prophet" means follow his hadiths thus they got a so called "interpretation" as they are getting all these random things that are never mentioned in the Quran.
-
This might be going a little off topic but could someone kindly explain to me what this verse means
731 You Adam's sons and daughters, take/receive your decoration/beauty at every/each mosque/place of worshipping God,
Regards,
Al-Azhar.
Hello ) That's okay i'm happy to try to explain )
It simply means dress nicely when going to a mosque or a place of worshipping God.
-
No Worries, I've also been busy with exams and essays. Now I have more free time.
That is your definition of righteousness and logic
To not be a transgressive person is part of being righteouss. Is it not? If yes, then how can one transgress in righteousness?, How is it even hypothetically possible? Could you come up with one hypothetical possibility? If you could come up with a hypothetical scenario where one is transgressing in righteousness, then that means its possible to trasngress in righteousness. I havn't come up with anything. If you do then mention it as that will then prove that im making stuff up.
The many many MANY times God says He IS "The Merciful".
This is different to being infinitely merciful which was what you originally wrote and that is what i questioned. Not that God is merciful.
Gods limits are preset just as the law presets laws we can't break otherwise we are allowed to do just as such.
Ok i don't feel this has answered my question. Again, is self-harm a sin? If yes is Sin not the breaking of God's laws or going against the God's limits? If yes then is that not trangression? If you could answer each question sperately it would make it easier for me to understand your point of view.
This is what is in our minds... sometimes we can't control such thoughts and quite frankly God has NEVER said we will be judged for our thoughts and only for our intentions and beliefs when it comes to the mind.
You might be right but I disagree partly because of these verses
Say "Whether you hide what is in your chests or you reveal it, God will know." And He knows what is in the heavens and the earth; and God is capable of all things. 3293118 O you who believe do not take as an inner-circle any from besides yourselves; they will only disrupt you greatly. They wish that you deviate; the hatred is apparent out of their mouths and what their chests conceal is even greater! We have made clear for you the signs if you comprehend
More importantly I disagree because of the possiblities of what your implying. Do you not think that we would be judged negatively by the God for example for lusting after animals? Just thinking about them lustfully? How about children, or others like sisters and so on? Do you think that these thoughts are acceptable?
How about violent thoughts about someone whom you know nothing about?
Well guess what, God has given us the ability to imagine and think as long as we don't put it into action and there is not a single Quranic verse that forbids it.
Do such thoughts appear to be in line with a righteouss person?
Many of us wanted many of these dictators dead and imaged how horribly he should die too but of course THEY don't want such thoughts to be made. Well guess what, God has given us the ability to imagine and think as long as we don't put it into action and there is not a single Quranic verse that forbids it.
Ok now have the same thoughts about your children, mothers, fathers, freinds, family innocent people. See the difference? Have I made my point? I didn't say don't have justful thougts (I seen no injustice in the murder of a bad dictator let alone bad thoughts about it)
I mean unjust, lustful and generally evil thoughts. Do you think these thoughts as acceptable so long as one does no put it into action.The woman doesn't want us to think sexually about them? Well we have needs and urges as humans and designed as such to have these, so too bad. This religion isn't a religion of monks or Christians that forbids lustful thoughts.
You also have a reason and spirit that can supress thoughts that are of an unrighteouss nature. If I know anyone to have a lustful mind, i'd never take any of the girls or women i know near them unless they'd (the girls and the women) be ok with it. If I had a friend who was lustful in terms of thoughts, i'd, never expose them to the women in my family. I wouldn't just go, "oh well he is a man and he has needs...."
Is there really a huge difference between someone looking at someone's behind or thinking lustfully about their behind??Heck there is even a verse about how women are to be appraoched lustfully rather than men
"You are approaching the men out of lust instead of the women! No, you are an ignorant people!" (2755)
That is an impressively big jump. Firstly the prophet may be wrong. Secondly the prophet isn't advocating lusting after women, he is just outraged that men are lusted after. Not that women are not lusted after. He may be distinguishing between a bad and worst. Either way we have no guarantee that he is right. He isn't God.
If lust was such a big deal like in some of those monk-like religions then sex for other than the reason of children would be forbidden.
I'm not against lustful thoughts. Im against lustful thoughts towards those who are not of Ma malekat aymunkum or zawj.
Some out there consider Foreplay as dirty and shouldn't be done, and same goes with certain other sex positions. So by your logic ALL manmade ideas of something being icky or dirty is a sin and that has literally no basis in this religion and the only things that are forbidden are what is stated in the book that has been described as complete.
I'm not against foreplay or positions. You can't prohibit a blessing. You've misunderstood my reasoning.
lusting after women is considering okay as long as we don't go into the sin of Zina or close to Zina or the other mentioned things of fahisha
It depends on your interpretation of fahisha.
Afterall if it was about lust then why is there no mention of not being allowed to hug a women? Everytime I hug some women, I get slightly enticed cause of how they feel and simply being a woman
Because hugging isn't lusting and that sensation which comes from the hug is not lust. It's a different sensation as far as i can tell. That could be material for lust just as a lady in a pair of jeans would be. There is no blame on the lady or the huggers IMO but the one who starts thinkng sexual thoughts starts bordering on fahisha IMO.
It's not affecting them nor is it leading to zina or anything as long as I keep control.
This isn't about consequences. It's about whats inherently wrong. In the case of thoughts about children the same could be said..... its not affecting them, nor is it leading to zina. The point is that the act is intrinsically wrong on the soul that uses its mind in such a manner and my support from the Quran is fahisha and my genuine intuitions about what is in line with dignity which is encompassed by righteoussness.
Flirting is not fahisha
I said flirting with someone who is taken not flirting in general. Thats like me going to my friend's girlfriend and flirting with her. do you think this is ok?
Raping your wife falls under treatment of people/aggression and probably a hefty version of it too considering the act thus we already got that covered in the Quran, so don't think that was a loop hole argument to prove your point.
People aggression? Seriously?! Even thought its an act of sexual nature in conjunction with aggression? You'd take it to be aggression because there is a verse in the Quran that says God does not like the aggressors, but you don't think that it counts as a fahisha or transgression because it is not explicitly saying in the Quran that "raping your wife is a transgression" or "raping your wife is a fahisha". Ok then, show me a verse in the Quran that sort of says "raping your wife is an aggression".
peace
-
Oh God, this topic isn't gonna end...
To not be a transgressive person is part of being righteouss. Is it not? If yes, then how can one transgress in righteousness?, How is it even hypothetically possible? Could you come up with one hypothetical possibility? If you could come up with a hypothetical scenario where one is transgressing in righteousness, then that means its possible to trasngress in righteousness. I havn't come up with anything. If you do then mention it as that will then prove that im making stuff up.
Righteousness is being someone who follows Gods laws and does good deeds. Following Gods laws is the key word here and by the defintion of transgression it is breaking Gods laws. If there is no law for such a thing, thus there is nothing to break. Thus if a man sleeps for 12 hours, he has not broken any laws as there are no laws about over sleeping and thus not considered a transgression. The problem is that you define EVERYTHING as transgression, which is YOUR definition and if it did indeed mean EVERYTHING then the Quran would have said so.
This is different to being infinitely merciful which was what you originally wrote and that is what i questioned. Not that God is merciful.
Do you deny God is infinity then? Are you saying a human can be more merciful than God? God is infinite everything as well as infinite justice.
Ok i don't feel this has answered my question. Again, is self-harm a sin? If yes is Sin not the breaking of God's laws or going against the God's limits? If yes then is that not trangression? If you could answer each question sperately it would make it easier for me to understand your point of view.
Self harm is a sin as we are not to destroy ourselves. Thus if one has done it, they have indeed sinned AKA transgressed. That is a transgression as it has already been said in the Quran that we can't destroy ourselves. Thus transgression that you point to mean EVERYTHING is only meant for things mentioned in the Quran like zina, murder, self harm, etc.... and not for things that aren't mentioned like sleep, walking, worship, etc...
You might be right but I disagree partly because of these verses
Say "Whether you hide what is in your chests or you reveal it, God will know." And He knows what is in the heavens and the earth; and God is capable of all things. 3293118 O you who believe do not take as an inner-circle any from besides yourselves; they will only disrupt you greatly. They wish that you deviate; the hatred is apparent out of their mouths and what their chests conceal is even greater! We have made clear for you the signs if you comprehend
More importantly I disagree because of the possiblities of what your implying. Do you not think that we would be judged negatively by the God for example for lusting after animals? Just thinking about them lustfully? How about children, or others like sisters and so on? Do you think that these thoughts are acceptable?
How about violent thoughts about someone whom you know nothing about?
You severely took those verses out of context you know. They simply states that God knows you in or out and as well references intention or sin of the heart which have been made clear in the Quran such as loving harm to come to believers or false testimonies, etc... Thus for the second verse you listed it references how they are hiding even more of their hatred. Doesn't mean that is a sin as that isn't put into action but once it is, then you got something going but by no means are either of theses verses saying that you can't think such things and are simply referencing that God will know your intentions and what you plan to do whether hide it or not.
and so what if someone thinks these things. As long as they don't plan to put them into action there is no problem and no verse states that God will punish you for your thoughts or that you can't think about something. He only has stated for our actions to be good. The mind is tricky and made especially trickier by Shaytan and because God has said this religion isn't a burden, then this sure as hell would be a burden if it actually was a rule.
Do such thoughts appear to be in line with a righteouss person?
Oh please.... you make the so called "rightous" person to be a will-less angel and that clearly would not be a human then. God has time after time said a rightous person is someone who follows his laws and does good deeds. The mind doesn't fall into such a description. Again remember that this religion IS NOT A BURDEN! Otherwise this would indeed be the hardest religion in existence if we were being judged on our every thought.
Ok now have the same thoughts about your children, mothers, fathers, freinds, family innocent people. See the difference? Have I made my point? I didn't say don't have justful thougts (I seen no injustice in the murder of a bad dictator let alone bad thoughts about it)
I mean unjust, lustful and generally evil thoughts. Do you think these thoughts as acceptable so long as one does no put it into action.If they are having such thoughts they should get help from a psychiatrist, but the Quran doesn't mention anything about having these thoughts as being sinful. You are simply bringing up so called human morality and turning what isn't haram as haram. The only things mentioned to be sinful are wanting harm to come to believers, false testiomony, false belief, and a few other smaller things I believe that don't involve general thinking. You are at this point literally just making up things as if you are making your own religion on what should be forbidden. God has said time after time that he is gonna judge you on zina not the THOUGHT of zina <_<
You also have a reason and spirit that can supress thoughts that are of an unrighteouss nature. If I know anyone to have a lustful mind, i'd never take any of the girls or women i know near them unless they'd (the girls and the women) be ok with it. If I had a friend who was lustful in terms of thoughts, i'd, never expose them to the women in my family. I wouldn't just go, "oh well he is a man and he has needs...."
Is there really a huge difference between someone looking at someone's behind or thinking lustfully about their behind??Again you are saying stuff that God has never mentioned. And no its not easy to suppress thoughts, thoughts just pass through randomly at times even. Also your life if thats how you wanna live there but there is a difference between looking at person and having lustful thoughts. Looking at them brings up disrespect while if its in your mind, no one is hurt. Again God never mentioned there is any harm in it.
That is an impressively big jump. Firstly the prophet may be wrong. Secondly the prophet isn't advocating lusting after women, he is just outraged that men are lusted after. Not that women are not lusted after. He may be distinguishing between a bad and worst. Either way we have no guarantee that he is right. He isn't God.
So then you are saying that God was wrong to put an important example in his book that is suppose to be an example to all of man kind? The way you spin that is...wow... but he clearly stated that men can lust for women and God wouldn't put that in his book if that was wrong unless he got punished or repented like some of the other prophets did for their sins that were mentioned in the book (Adam, Moses, Solomon)
I'm not against lustful thoughts. Im against lustful thoughts towards those who are not of Ma malekat aymunkum or zawj.
That's you, not God. No one is being harmed so I see no problem.
I'm not against foreplay or positions. You can't prohibit a blessing. You've misunderstood my reasoning.
A blessing you say? One could say the same about their free to think minds (AKA lustful thoughts) Some say that foreplay is dirty and therefore fahisha but by that logic.
It depends on your interpretation of fahisha.Because hugging isn't lusting and that sensation which comes from the hug is not lust. It's a different sensation as far as i can tell. That could be material for lust just as a lady in a pair of jeans would be. There is no blame on the lady or the huggers IMO but the one who starts thinkng sexual thoughts starts bordering on fahisha IMO.
no I meant I get enticed as in I get "stiff" from feeling the womans body through the hug. Regardless that is again your opinion of sexual thoughts being fahisha when there is not a single bit of proof that it is and fahisha has been clearly told to us as well as the fact that no verse says we are judged for our thoughts.
This isn't about consequences. It's about whats inherently wrong. In the case of thoughts about children the same could be said..... its not affecting them, nor is it leading to zina. The point is that the act is intrinsically wrong on the soul that uses its mind in such a manner and my support from the Quran is fahisha and my genuine intuitions about what is in line with dignity which is encompassed by righteoussness.
Lustful thoughts are wrong to you, not to everyone. God hasn't mentioned that we are judged for our thoughts and only has mentioned our actions. If they have these thoughts, so be it as long as they don't do the bad thing. You are not in a position to decide right and wrong as you are not God as I can go ahead and simply state thinking about sponges are wrong as these are all man made moralities you are mentioning and have not been mentioned in the Quran once. My support is the Quran, and the fact that it states all has been perfectly stated to us and thus since thoughts aren't mentioned, then there is no sin to them as long as they aren't put to action.
I said flirting with someone who is taken not flirting in general. Thats like me going to my friend's girlfriend and flirting with her. do you think this is ok?
Its simply competition or business just as how one doesn't like someone competing with him for a job. If the girl ends up liking that guy more, so be it. Again you have no evidence and are just bringing up random man made morality that differs all over the world into this where one part might throw even talking to woman into such a catagory.
People aggression? Seriously?! Even thought its an act of sexual nature in conjunction with aggression? You'd take it to be aggression because there is a verse in the Quran that says God does not like the aggressors, but you don't think that it counts as a fahisha or transgression because it is not explicitly saying in the Quran that "raping your wife is a transgression" or "raping your wife is a fahisha". Ok then, show me a verse in the Quran that sort of says "raping your wife is an aggression".
peaceI didn't say it wasn't a transgression as you are breaking Gods laws on attacking someone and no i'm not referring to when God said he doesn't like aggressors but rather the times when he says that we should aggress against others. Thus raping your wife falls under the sin of aggression therefore breaking Gods laws. Read what I said carefully there as I said it falls under aggression earlier. Thus its no hidden sin as you were trying to call it as its quite covered in the Quran and therefore isn't in the field of fahisha as its not mentioned as such but still a hefty sin cause it falls under aggression (hefty cause of the nature of it I would think) So yeah i'm not in disagreement with you here as I agree this is a transgression cause it has been MENTIONED unlike stuff like oversleeping which you claim is sinful even though it isn't mentioned.
-
Oh God, this topic isn't gonna end...
Don't worry it will. Its just a matter of how effieciently it will end. Once we fully understand each other we will either agree to disagree or just agree with each other on certain things.
Do you deny God is infinity then? Are you saying a human can be more merciful than God? God is infinite everything as well as infinite justice.
All I said was show me a verse that shows God is infinitely merciful since i've never come across it. I think if God were to be infinitely merciful there would be logical contradictions. For example how could he be infinitely just at the same time? Thats a seperate philosophical discussion. Lets focus on the main issue as this could seriously derail.
Self harm is a sin as we are not to destroy ourselves. Thus if one has done it, they have indeed sinned AKA transgressed. That is a transgression as it has already been said in the Quran that we can't destroy ourselves. Thus transgression that you point to mean EVERYTHING
What im trying to prove to you is that not every case of transgression is stated in the Quran. I think i might have done that. Could you back this up with a verse? If you remember roughly that should be ok since I know it's hard to just find a verse. So if you remember rougly a verse that says self-harm is a transgression, then that would do.
Another thing. How do you know what constitutes self-harm? Isn't that open to the reader's interpretation? Or is it that once someone starts trying to figure out what constitutes self-harm, they start to think themselves as a god and start setting up laws in addition to that of the God's as your posts imply. See what i've been dealing with?
So where would you personally draw the line of what counts as self-harm? You'l realise in doing so you'l have to project your reason on the scripture. If you think that that is making stuff up, then how else would you do it?
My point about sleep and worship is that it is hypothetically possible that they be done to the extent that ultimately they result in more harm then benefit for the individual thus constituting self-harm. Given that an atom's weight of good and bad is considered by the God, even the smallest amount of self-harm will have consequences.
The character that has the wisdom to a) Determine accurately in a situation which option would bring him the best benefit or least harm b) has the will power to carry out such an action.
Is IMO the most successful. Even an atom's difference in the goodness of someone to another makes that person better then the other. Only thing is that such a small difference may not be that important. Depends on how driven you are with regards to being virtuous.You severely took those verses out of context you know.
It's my personal understanding that certain thoughts that someone allows themselves to have would not be judged by God neutrally. I'm not saying this is God's law or that this is how it is or how it should be.
Again remember that this religion IS NOT A BURDEN! Otherwise this would indeed be the hardest religion in existence if we were being judged on our every thought.
For the soul is what it earns, and against it is what it earns, God does not burden a soul beyond it's capacity. But to be in physically good shape, you need excercise, knowledge...you need research and so on. The greater the quality of the thing you want, the more effort (thus more burden) you must face to attain it.
And no its not easy to suppress thoughts, thoughts just pass through randomly at times even. Also your life if thats how you wanna live there but there is a difference between looking at person and having lustful thoughts. Looking at them brings up disrespect while if its in your mind, no one is hurt. Again God never mentioned there is any harm in it.
I didn't say it was easy. I said that individuals should try to suppress and never intentionally engage in fahisha and zina like thoughts. yes no one is hurt if they don't find out but thats not a justification.
That's you, not God. No one is being harmed so I see no problem.
Consider thisA paedophile is perving on a child but he never gets caught and so no one gets hurt. Is he morally justified? You would say not as it is against the Quran. Agreed. But what im trying to point out is that it is not about whether someone gets hurt or not. Its about what's inherently wrong. There is something inherently wrong in the act of perving even if there were no negative consequences. Whether its done with the mind or the eye, IMO is not that significantly different. There is something inherently wrong with the act. Also the arabic word use for gaze in 2431 could also entail mental vision not just gaze in the literal sense
= Ba-Sad-Ra =
Becoming perceptive, mental perception, having belief or knowledge, understanding, intelligence or skill, knowing, giving light, shining, illuminated, making manifest, evident and/or apparent.
To behold/perceive/see/observe/watch.Opening the eyes and/or seeing (seldom used unless mental perception is conjoined)Clear sightThickness of anything
Sense of sight, making or causing to see and/or have sight, eye-sight, eyes.Soft stones having some whiteness
Intent or a hard glanceA watcher or guard, a lion.But you might argue that here it exclusively means vision with eyes and not the mind based on a cross-reference
http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=bSr#(24315)But given that I sense not much of a difference between mentally lusting after someone then with the eyes, i believe that both should be diminished/restrained.
So then you are saying that God was wrong to put an important example in his book that is suppose to be an example to all of man kind? The way you spin that is...wow...
The way i spin it.......
I said that we can't take that which prophet Lot said as law or advice for us as he is not God and EVEN IF WE DO, the prophet may have been making a distinction between bad and worst. Do you think that those men were approaching the men with lust mentally or with their eyes? So would you then think that prophet Lot was reccomending that they approach the women lustfully instead?? What with? their eyes? their minds?Its simply competition or business just as how one doesn't like someone competing with him for a job. If the girl ends up liking that guy more, so be it. Again you have no evidence and are just bringing up random man made morality that differs all over the world into this where one part might throw even talking to woman into such a catagory.
If the girl was single, then its fair competition but if the girl is taken, then there is no competition untill she is single again. If she is happy with the guy, then she should be left alone. If she isn't happy then someone should express their feelings towards the girl and see what she decides. Not flirt with her.
So yeah i'm not in disagreement with you here as I agree this is a transgression cause it has been MENTIONED unlike stuff like oversleeping which you claim is sinful even though it isn't mentioned.
Where is it mentioned??? All your given is the word aggression and a couple of examples. Its up to the individual to decide what is aggression with their God given reason. This is my whole point about transgression and fahisha. So again I'l say this
you don't think that it counts as a fahisha or transgression because it is not explicitly saying in the Quran that "raping your wife is a transgression" or "raping your wife is a fahisha". Ok then, show me a verse in the Quran that sort of says "raping your wife is an aggression".
I haven't come across any such verse or anything that implies such a case other than what the word aggression means and entails. -
Don't worry it will. Its just a matter of how effieciently it will end. Once we fully understand each other we will either agree to disagree or just agree with each other on certain things.
Well hopefully then O_O
All I said was show me a verse that shows God is infinitely merciful since i've never come across it. I think if God were to be infinitely merciful there would be logical contradictions. For example how could he be infinitely just at the same time? Thats a seperate philosophical discussion. Lets focus on the main issue as this could seriously derail.
God has said he "eternal" AKA infinity. The definition of The God comes under infinity as in omnipotent, omniscent, omnipresent, etc and thefore his mercy would also have to be infintite.
What im trying to prove to you is that not every case of transgression is stated in the Quran. I think i might have done that. Could you back this up with a verse? If you remember roughly that should be ok since I know it's hard to just find a verse. So if you remember rougly a verse that says self-harm is a transgression, then that would do.
Another thing. How do you know what constitutes self-harm? Isn't that open to the reader's interpretation? Or is it that once someone starts trying to figure out what constitutes self-harm, they start to think themselves as a god and start setting up laws in addition to that of the God's as your posts imply. See what i've been dealing with?
So where would you personally draw the line of what counts as self-harm? You'l realise in doing so you'l have to project your reason on the scripture. If you think that that is making stuff up, then how else would you do it?
My point about sleep and worship is that it is hypothetically possible that they be done to the extent that ultimately they result in more harm then benefit for the individual thus constituting self-harm. Given that an atom's weight of good and bad is considered by the God, even the smallest amount of self-harm will have consequences.
The character that has the wisdom to a) Determine accurately in a situation which option would bring him the best benefit or least harm b) has the will power to carry out such an action.
Is IMO the most successful. Even an atom's difference in the goodness of someone to another makes that person better then the other. Only thing is that such a small difference may not be that important. Depends on how driven you are with regards to being virtuous.It's freakin' self harm! It is as clear as day what it means as in don't permenantly damage yourself with things such as knives, or poison. It is stated in the Quran that self harm is a sin and therefore if we do an action that harms us then it is a sin. You bring up sleep again but simply oversleeping is no sin as there is no mention to it being one but if it somehow ended up harming you or sin (which I don't know how one can oversleep to the point of harm) then it would be a sin but not cause of oversleeping but rather the damage that got. That's not a good example though, a better example would be over drinking water. There is no harm in drinking a lot of water but if it leads to harm then one has sinned for damaging themselves, not the water drinking. Therefore all i'm saying is that over doing something is not a sin until it causes harm or sin which then it will be a sin in regards to what has fruititioned out of it and not for over doing it.
It's my personal understanding that certain thoughts that someone allows themselves to have would not be judged by God neutrally. I'm not saying this is God's law or that this is how it is or how it should be.
The verses are quite clear. It is stating that basically talking about the intention and motive of something and that you can either show it or conceal it and doesn't mean thinking about things you have no intention of performing. The second one references their plans that they have for you. Those are plans that they wanna execute on you not simple thoughts that they have no motive of executing. Big difference between the two. There is no real evidence that God will judge you for your thoughts. He told us for example not to kill people, didn't say not to kill NOR have a mental image of killing someone.
For the soul is what it earns, and against it is what it earns, God does not burden a soul beyond it's capacity. But to be in physically good shape, you need excercise, knowledge...you need research and so on. The greater the quality of the thing you want, the more effort (thus more burden) you must face to attain it.
You earn things physically through charity and obedience as stated in the Quran, the mind has no part in it other than your intentions/motives and belief.
I didn't say it was easy. I said that individuals should try to suppress and never intentionally engage in fahisha and zina like thoughts. yes no one is hurt if they don't find out but thats not a justification.
Consider thisA paedophile is perving on a child but he never gets caught and so no one gets hurt. Is he morally justified? You would say not as it is against the Quran. Agreed. But what im trying to point out is that it is not about whether someone gets hurt or not. Its about what's inherently wrong. There is something inherently wrong in the act of perving even if there were no negative consequences. Whether its done with the mind or the eye, IMO is not that significantly different. There is something inherently wrong with the act.
Well that's a worldly issue and not one in regards to what God has told us. The person has his fantasies but by no means has a motive or inclination to ever do them, thus its not a sin as its not in the book. If a person is having such thoughts all the time he either is of a bad sinful nature in the first place or has mental issues which one would go to a shrink to try to resolve them or simply live with them without ever being inclined to do them. Remember what is not right isn't exactly what determines a religion. Many considering lashing a someone for zina to not be rightous when the God has ordered for it to be done . This is why human morality isn't one that we rely on as its too mixed and varied and thus why God has explained in his perfect book what we should and shouldn't do and as we can see he hasn't ordered us to not think about these things and only told us not to physically do them. Afterall you may have a muslim who imagines himself eating pork but never has the inclination to do so. It just something he might possible still like a lot from his days of being none muslim.
Also the arabic word use for gaze in 2431 could also entail mental vision not just gaze in the literal sense
= Ba-Sad-Ra =
Becoming perceptive, mental perception, having belief or knowledge, understanding, intelligence or skill, knowing, giving light, shining, illuminated, making manifest, evident and/or apparent.
To behold/perceive/see/observe/watch.Opening the eyes and/or seeing (seldom used unless mental perception is conjoined)Clear sightThickness of anything
Sense of sight, making or causing to see and/or have sight, eye-sight, eyes.Soft stones having some whiteness
Intent or a hard glanceA watcher or guard, a lion.But you might argue that here it exclusively means vision with eyes and not the mind based on a cross-reference
http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=bSr#(24315)But given that I sense not much of a difference between mentally lusting after someone then with the eyes, i believe that both should be diminished/restrained.
The very fact that it uses the verb "lower" already proves that its a physical action of the eyes. Thus if we see ones privates or breasts we should look away. The word here as the link states literally can mean eye, looking, and such and has been used to physically mean looking in some of the other verses too as stated in the page. Remember that this book is NOT written poetically as stated and thus if it was somehow saying to not lust, it would be quite metaphorical especially since almost no one takes that verse to mean as such and literally means to not stare. If it was about lust then why allow men to show stuff like their chest which is found sexual to women while the women are required to cover their chest? The verse is clearly talking about not looking at ones shame which are the genitals out of respect as well as it might lead to EXTREME lust that could lead to the woman being raped which covering such a lustful spot like the breasts are for protection. Its no different from many of the dress codes we have here in the west which ordains men and women to cover their gentials and women to also cover their breast which is done out of covering up shame and to keep the woman protected as those areas are quite lustful unlike her bare arms or legs. Understand that just like many other things in this religion, lust is fine as long as we keep it in control and don't let it go into sin such as Zina or Fahisha or Rape and there has again been nothing in the clear and complete book of God that says you can't think of women.
The way i spin it.......
I said that we can't take that which prophet Lot said as law or advice for us as he is not God and EVEN IF WE DO, the prophet may have been making a distinction between bad and worst. Do you think that those men were approaching the men with lust mentally or with their eyes? So would you then think that prophet Lot was reccomending that they approach the women lustfully instead?? What with? their eyes? their minds?He still simply said "You are approaching the men out of lust instead of the women! No, you are an ignorant people!" (2755) He said INSTEAD of women, thus he is saying it is fine for a man to lust after a woman (as long as he isn't planning anything sinful) but don't be homosexuals and lust after men INSTEAD. It would make no sense whatsoever for him to be even bringing up why they are lusting over men instead of women if lusting was a sin, he would simply say something like why are you lusting for men when lusting all together is bad. Plus if what he was saying IS wrong, God would have said so just like whenever else the other prophets made a mistake. What Lot is saying here is quite simple is that we should "desire" women therefore saying that having desires of lust for a woman is fine is fine but that we shouldn't have deires of lust for "men" especially as it went over the line and led to those men being raped too thus doing a horrendous sin. But you state then how do we "appraoch women" in lust? well remember respect is the key here as stated many many times, so a man have his desires and fantasys but when he approaches a women he should keep respect and be kind and good with them thus keeping his lust under "control". Thus men always are lusty and so are women too from what i've seen before XD its just that we gotta keep things in control and not aggress, grope, or stare at them nude, but nothing in the Quran forbids thoughts as they are simple thougths without intention of ever acting on them.
If the girl was single, then its fair competition but if the girl is taken, then there is no competition untill she is single again. If she is happy with the guy, then she should be left alone. If she isn't happy then someone should express their feelings towards the girl and see what she decides. Not flirt with her.
Again that is a worldly issue. There is nothing that says you can't woo a girl who is already taken. Afterall her boyfriend or husband may be a mean person so she who might see you would be glad to go with you instead. Remember this is a WOMANs decision here of if she wants to dump the last one for the new one. Course what you said about expressing feelings to the girl is flirting regardless so i'm not sure what you define as "flirting". I define flirting as simply trying to woo a girl whether it is sweet talking or the regular methods of getting a girl, yet there are those who go and grope the girl which is an invasion of privacy against her will. But again this is a worldly issue and doesn't have basis in the Quran about simply sweet talking a girl who is taken to get her or vice versa.
Where is it mentioned??? All your given is the word aggression and a couple of examples. Its up to the individual to decide what is aggression with their God given reason. This is my whole point about transgression and fahisha. So again I'l say this
you don't think that it counts as a fahisha or transgression because it is not explicitly saying in the Quran that "raping your wife is a transgression" or "raping your wife is a fahisha". Ok then, show me a verse in the Quran that sort of says "raping your wife is an aggression".
I haven't come across any such verse or anything that implies such a case other than what the word aggression means and entails.Did you not read what I last wrote? I said I consider it a "transgression" as you are breaking Gods rule on not being aggressive. Anyways you want verses, here are a couple
"If it is then found out that they had lied, then two others will take their place from those who were present, and they will swear by God "Our testimony is more truthful than their testimony, and if we aggress, then we are of the wicked." (5107)
"The error is upon those who oppress the people, and they aggress in the land without cause. For these will be a painful retribution." (4242)
"And fight them so there is no more persecution, and so that the system is God's. If they cease, then there will be no aggression except against the wicked." (2193)
"And fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress, God does not like the aggressors." (2190)
"Call on your Lord in humility and in secret. He does not like the aggressors." (755)
So clearly aggression is condemned against those who are not wicked and rape is a form of aggression. So just incase you miss it again RAPE IS A TRANSGRESSION!
okay peace
-
Peace to you to Aryan Warrior
You earn things physically through charity and obedience as stated in the Quran, the mind has no part in it other than your intentions/motives and belief.
2286 God does not burden a soul except with what it can bear. For it is what it earns, and against it is what it earns. "Our Lord, do not mind us if we forget or make mistakes; our Lord, do not place a burden upon us as You have placed upon those before us; our Lord, do not place upon us what we cannot bear; pardon us, and forgive us, and have mercy on us; You are our patron, so grant us victory over the disbelieving people."
Here the word nafs is translated as soul. Depending on what you take to be the transalation and what you take to affect the soul (whether only physical action but also mental action as well) that should determine your answer. For me the mental thoughts clearly affect the soul and i take the word nafs to be soul or self. So we might agree to disagree here unless you can point something else out that might change my mind.
Therefore all i'm saying is that over doing something is not a sin until it causes harm or sin which then it will be a sin in regards to what has fruititioned out of it and not for over doing it.
What kind of sin would this be? Transgression?
The very fact that it uses the verb "lower" already proves that its a physical action of the eyes.
The word traditionally translated as lower also means, lessen, restrain etc.
Thus if we see ones privates or breasts we should look away
If no one is being harmed, why should we? My point is the act is intrinsically wrong and thus bad for the soul whether this is seen with the eyes or fantasised with the mind. It wouldn't IMO make sense to advise the restraint or the lessening of the eyes but not the mental with regards to the lusting of women and my reason for this is that if neither act is harmful to anyone, then why advise to restrain. Also keep in mind that the restraint is not for the sake of the person being lusted upon but it is on the believer carrying out the act since the verse says2430 Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, for that is better for them. God is fully aware of what you do.
God is fully aware of what we do even if others, such as the person being lusted after is not aware.He still simply said "You are approaching the men out of lust instead of the women! No, you are an ignorant people!" (2755) He said INSTEAD of women, thus he is saying it is fine for a man to lust after a woman (as long as he isn't planning anything sinful) but don't be homosexuals and lust after men INSTEAD.
Ok. How would you answer these relevant questions
Do you think that those men were approaching the men with lust mentally or with their eyes? So would you then think that prophet Lot was reccomending that they approach the women lustfully instead?? What with? their eyes? their minds?
Did you not read what I last wrote? I said I consider it a "transgression" as you are breaking Gods rule on not being aggressive. Anyways you want verses, here are a couple
Yes but i think either you didn't read my post or just misunderstood it. I'l tell you it again at the end but in a more specifica since way.
"If it is then found out that they had lied, then two others will take their place from those who were present, and they will swear by God "Our testimony is more truthful than their testimony, and if we aggress, then we are of the wicked." (5107)
"The error is upon those who oppress the people, and they aggress in the land without cause. For these will be a painful retribution." (4242)
"And fight them so there is no more persecution, and so that the system is God's. If they cease, then there will be no aggression except against the wicked." (2193)
"And fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress, God does not like the aggressors." (2190)
"Call on your Lord in humility and in secret. He does not like the aggressors." (755)
So clearly aggression is condemned against those who are not wicked and rape is a form of aggression. So just incase you miss it again RAPE IS A TRANSGRESSION!
You came to conclude that aggression is a transgression based on these verses. But how did you come to conclude that rape is an aggression? Your answer, rape is an act of aggression and it is encompassed by the term aggression. This is exactly my point! You can't expect the Quran to cover every instance of aggression just as you can't expect the Quran to cover every instance of fahisha or transgression.
In the case of fahisha, issues such as inappropriately touching up an animal or a child, are not covered except via the term fahisha itself. This is not about full on sex. I don't see how you can cover it with the Quran except via the term fahisha since the example given in the Quran are in relation to full on sex as far as i know. Could you do it? As in back these claims up with verses?
Going back to transgression
Therefore all i'm saying is that over doing something is not a sin until it causes harm or sin which then it will be a sin in regards to what has fruititioned out of it and not for over doing it.
If you overdo it, then its a harm. If you don't get harmed or suffer loss in anyway, then you havn't overdone it. This is what it means to overdo. Doing more then one should which is determined by whether one is harmed or not and to overdo is to transgress which is pretty much i've been arguing for throughout our dicussion. How could you deny this?
peace