7:31: Do not eat excesively? or do not waste food?
-
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
-
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.
Burden on a soul literally is referring to our distress and state of mind here as its not our bodies that would feel that distress but rather our souls/our psyche/our minds and such, thus this has nothing to do with mental thoughts but rather is talking about how God will not make you do things that are a burden on your psyche especially since thoughts WOULD be a burden if you have thoughts that you have no will to EVER manifest. God has not stated here or anywhere about what thoughts we get judged on other than belief, wanting bad things to happen to believers, intention, motive (false testimonies ie).
What kind of sin would this be? Transgression?
Yep which we shall get to near the end of this post )
The word traditionally translated as lower also means, lessen, restrain etc.
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.Yeah yeah yeah... you keep saying its "not good for the soul" HOW!? lust hasn't changed me into some rapist sex machine that does zina left and right nor has it done so for many other people?
First off it is crystal clear that it is talking about not not staring at a persons genitals and breasts because of the dress code that is mentioned to cover up those areas cause those are areas that cause a person a "uncontrolable" amount of lust that might make them commit a sin such as Zina or rape, and the fact that those parts are "shameful". If this was simply about the mind then whats the point of giving a dress code? why not just state to not lust whatsoever when you see a person? Plus as i've said before God has said this book is not written in POETRY and stating to lower your eyes/gaze to anyone who has read the Quran meant to lower your gaze otherwise God as he stated before that the Quran is clear would have said to simply not lust whatsoever., or would have said not to think of lust.
Plus there is a MASSIVE difference between what is in your thoughts and what you see. If you have thoughts, it might get a bit lusty but nothing too much its just a simple fantasy and as long as you keep it in control by not letting it go to Zina then that is good and fine. Looking at privates and bare breasts on the other hand are MASSIVE stimulant of lust and pornography and such have proven that with how people watch it and get EXTREMELY lustful. Afterall I don't see it saying a woman should cover her arms or hair which are quite "Sexy" and doesn't tell a man to cover his chest which is also found to be quite "sexy" to a woman but states to cover the genitals and breasts cause those are extreme spots of lust. Its just like in much of the west with the dress code that states just as the Quran does to cover your breasts and genitalia because its "extremely lustful" and "shameful".
The point is that God is telling us to keep it in "control" cause if we let it get out of control we may want to commit Zina or rape thus when he said it's "better for you" it literally means that it prevents you from committing such sins as those.
As well its also about "respect". Genitals are shameful and therefore we are told to respect the other persons wish and not stare at them if chance comes and we are in front of them. Thus if a male doctor is operating on a woman who has to be naked for this, he shouldn't stare at them as such.
The eyes are more harmful than the simple fantasy of the mind. The eyes cause disrespect if you refuse to stop looking at those spots, its also harmful for you as it causes extreme lust that may lead to a sin like Zina, as well as the fact that the eyes wants to see more and keep going around and looking at them as such. The mind causes neither harm to you as the lust isn't high enough to cause zina (if you can control them which most I know can) and it doesn't cause disrespect as its just in your mind.
And of course the Quran DOES not state that we are judged for our thoughts with no intention of doing them.
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?
Those men were approached with EXTREME out of control lust. If these men only had fantasies with no intention of ever doing it, then this wouldn't have happened. This was out of control and thus why the men were raped. But thing is that Lot was referring to how men approach women with "controlled lust" and not men with "out of control" lust. Remember these were all actions that happened there because of out of control lust.
Basically homosexuality is fahisha and thus if one considers it has out of control lust for men (or women if a woman) so that is the first fault right there and thus their out of control sin caused this. What Lot was saying about lusting for woman refers to I believe a more "controlled" lust, one that doesn't lead to sin.
Course the eyes did play a big factor here too as they liked the body of a man as they perceived with their eyes otherwise it wouldn't matter who they'd go with, therefore why the eye is so important.
Regardless its out of control lust that should be avoided.
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.
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.
Sigh... aggression is simple in understanding. Its straightforward and isn't hard to determine what it means. Aggression as defined is Hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.
Therefore rape is exactly that. Course I also have a new theory too that I am curious on your answer. You remember how Homosexuality was considered Fahisha by Lot. Well the events that happened were both Homosexuality and Rape there and Lot never specified that he was only talking about the homosexuality, so i'm thinking that it may be referring to both homosexuality and rape whether done at one or separately. Therefore rape may have indeed been defined here as Fahisha. Regardless that doesn't change the fact that it still also aggression anyways.
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?
Actually inappropriately touching up something or someone is a fahisha by the fact that it falls under "getting close to Zina" since you are playing with their genitals afterall.
Anyways remember the Fahisha we were given weren't all about full on sex. One was simply marrying a close relative, and one was about homosexuality which in on itself isn't sex, and one was about "close to Zina" which means everything that leads up to sex such as foreplay. So fahisha is covered in all ways as you can see.
Going back to transgression
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
Oh so we were on the same page all along XDD I guess we really were misunderstanding each other as you said. I thought you meant as in simply like oversleep on a saturday when it causes no harm is also a sin. Therefore we are indeed on the same page. Like one can drink a lot of coffee, but if its doing no damage then you haven't sinned. Or if you once in a while over eat and doesn't harm you, then its not a sin.
Well I think we solved the topic at hand XDD great speaking with you dude ) Now lets clear up the other thing
Have a great day (or rather night from where I am XD)
-
First off it is crystal clear that it is talking about not not staring at a persons genitals and breasts
I didn't say we should never look at a woman or think about them. I meant any thoughts that bring about lust should be blocked. Like thoughts about their genitals and interaction with their genitals. But their genitals is not the only manner that can incite lustful thoughts. My general view is that there is a distinction between that which is line with beauty and that which is in line with lust. In the case of lust towards someone who is not yours (zawj or MMA) the lust IMO takes a shameful turn since the lust between two lovers should IMO be private just as sex should be. But thats just my opnion and my understanding of what is dignified and what is shameful.
The eyes are more harmful than the simple fantasy of the mind. The eyes cause disrespect if you refuse to stop looking at those spots, its also harmful for you as it causes extreme lust that may lead to a sin like Zina
I disagree. The eyes cause disrespect only when you get caught. When you don't get caught it's takes away from the dignity of someone IMO just as is the case with the mental thoughts. Also I think that ultimately that there is very little difference between eyeing someone and thinking about them lustfully in terms of what could lead to zina.
When the eye looks, it's not as potent untill the mind does something with the image. The mind is powerful and so I really dont understand why you'd take a hard stance on looking at someone's bum but not on thinking about their bum where in which depending on your imagination much can be done to make the feeling of lust more potent then just simply looking.
As well its also about "respect". Genitals are shameful and therefore we are told to respect the other persons wish and not stare at them
Don't you think they'd have a wish to not be lusted after? Would not lusting after the no be respecting the other persons wish?
And of course the Quran DOES not state that we are judged for our thoughts with no intention of doing them
Thinking is an action just as speech and other things are. We are told that God is fully aware of what we do and what we think.
Oh so we were on the same page all along XDD I guess we really were misunderstanding each other as you said. I thought you meant as in simply like oversleep on a saturday when it causes no harm is also a sin. Therefore we are indeed on the same page. Like one can drink a lot of coffee, but if its doing no damage then you haven't sinned. Or if you once in a while over eat and doesn't harm you, then its not a sin
My point was basically that some terms are self-explanatory and if some examples are given in the Quran, it does not constitute like those are the only instances. We have to use our intuitions and reason to determine what fall within that category and people will come out with different opinions on this.
Well I think we solved the topic at hand XDD great speaking with you dude Now lets clear up the other thing
Have a great day (or rather night from where I am XD)
Yeah good talk. I think on the view of fahisha we'l probably have to agree to disagree. Thanks and Good luck buddy.
-
Again sorry for the late reply. Been busy.
I didn't say we should never look at a woman or think about them. I meant any thoughts that bring about lust should be blocked. Like thoughts about their genitals and interaction with their genitals. But their genitals is not the only manner that can incite lustful thoughts. My general view is that there is a distinction between that which is line with beauty and that which is in line with lust. In the case of lust towards someone who is not yours (zawj or MMA) the lust IMO takes a shameful turn since the lust between two lovers should IMO be private just as sex should be. But thats just my opnion and my understanding of what is dignified and what is shameful.
You're the one guy who said that things can be done as long as they aren't excessive (AKA leading into sin) such as overeating, oversleeping and such. Thus why is it that you say absolutely NO at having lust whatsoever ever? you want it at a complete zero even though it won't lead the person to sin. Shameful turn you say? If you wanna talk shameful that is a manmade concept. Many consider lashing something 100 times as a shameful act but God sure doesn't. Basically God has said time after time that its about not going into the physical acts of lust such as Zina, homosexuality+rape, close to Zina, and incest. All those that God has mentioned are due to an EXCESSIVE amount of lust. You don't see your average horny teenager who things about a lot of lustful things always commit these things unless he is out of control, which unfortunately seems to be the case nowadays in much of the west. Its in your mind. So what? We haven't been told we can't do it, that is simply a manmade taboo that brings about such standards just as we have the same manmade taboos that dislike some things in the Quran, yet we don't agree with those.
I disagree. The eyes cause disrespect only when you get caught. When you don't get caught it's takes away from the dignity of someone IMO just as is the case with the mental thoughts. Also I think that ultimately that there is very little difference between eyeing someone and thinking about them lustfully in terms of what could lead to zina.
When the eye looks, it's not as potent untill the mind does something with the image. The mind is powerful and so I really dont understand why you'd take a hard stance on looking at someone's bum but not on thinking about their bum where in which depending on your imagination much can be done to make the feeling of lust more potent then just simply looking.
And guess who the All-Seeing and All-Knowing is? God has caught you for looking at those spots and even more people have caught you for looking those bare spots. And again it is more about what cause EXCESSIVE lust thus why we are told not to look at such spots with lustful purposes. And oh there is a massive difference between looking and thinking. As i've said, porn has already proven that to be the case as many many people won't masturbate or at least won't masturbate with that type of lustful energy without looking at porn at first. Its pretty freakin crystal clear that the eyes stir up lust far FAR more than the mind can as evident by many modern day examples. Why do people get naked when having sex? it stirs up more lust as they can see each other too and thus has them more excited. Simply thinking about sex won't make be spring up, but if I see it, I will likely spring up.
Anyways you state that looking and thinking aren't that different? Then why is it that men always run after the far FAR more voluptuous women? If it didn't matter why not go with these really ugly women and simply close there eyes and imagine something else? clearly that doesn't work and its the eyes that stir it up lust. Why is it that men like big breast? if looking didn't matter than why not simply go for the flat chested and imagine them with a big chest?
Anyways looking simply can lead one straight into Zina. The animal kingdom is evident of that as the female animal might stick her genitals towards the male and the male when sees it becomes enticed and goes in for straight up sex. Looking clearly had something to do there. Course we are humans and have better control and thus why one needs to have a moderate amount of lust and not excessive. A man might think but won't engage into sex but if a naked woman comes right in front of him, he will be far FAR more enticed and will want to have sex right then and there. The eye clearly had something to do with it.
Thus women why are told to cover their breasts and genitals as they cause excessive lust and never told to cover their arms, legs, stomach, hair, face, or hair even though they might appear a bit sexual to a man, won't entice him enough to so freakin badly want sex right then and there. Some may have control and not want sex right then and there but still feel that lust but it only builds up and more and more and more until they start to lose control and that is why we aren't to look at these private parts.
Regardless those are worldly stuff we are discussing here and again the command has been not to look at their bare privates with lust and says nothing about the mind. You may state that the "eye" is referring to the mind, but there are examples of that same word for eye being used for physically looking too elsewhere int the Quran, as well as the fact that God has stated that the Quran isn't written poetically therefore if eye meant mind, that would be a metaphor right there and in the 1400 years of Islam, no one has ever taken that to mean the mind and always have taken it to mean physically looking, course the interpretation of what not to look at has varied but thats a different story all together. Plus the very fact that those two verses refer to clothing and what should be covered directly tells us that it is about physically looking at those uncovered parts, thus why it also states its better for you as it prevents us from gaining excessive lust and possibly leading into great sins like Zina.
Don't you think they'd have a wish to not be lusted after? Would not lusting after the no be respecting the other persons wish?
And I wish to be hired for a job, be the king of the world, and not have people compete against me, but clearly that isn't the case as that is life. We all have these wants but don't always get them. The person who didn't hired me is not guilty of anythings, he simply didn't want me even though I badly wanted the job. I wanted to be the king of the world but no one clearly wants that and they sure aren't blameworthy. I don't want competition but clearly I will have some and they sure aren't blameworthy either.
Thus the same applies here. Just cause they don't want to be lusted after doesn't mean my personal freedom of thinking can't exist. I treat them with respect like any human nor do I bring my lust to fruitition nor do I have any plans to do so. I think people think of me with lust and I already know one person who does but i'm lile "so what" that is their freedom as long as they don't push it down my throat. Its just as how there are people from different religions who don't want us to follow Islam and while we don't like that, it is simply their thoughts and they aren't being hostile to us nor plan to be.
God hasn't forbidden us our thoughts, as long as we don't engage in the physical actions or plan to at some point. The genitals are shameful and thus why we are told not to look at them other than the fact that is leads to excessive lust. Not only would the other person be humiliated by the fact that we won't stop looking at their genitals but it also causes excessive lust. If its just thought, the other person won't be humiliated as they won't know and it isn't causing you excessive lust.
Thinking is an action just as speech and other things are. We are told that God is fully aware of what we do and what we think.
Thinking is a mental action NOT a physical action. God is fully aware of what we do and think refers to our actions+intentions not simply thoughts cause that would be quite vague especially since there is no direct verse that tells us what we can't think about like for speech how there are many verses on how we can't speak such as backbiting and slander. As well it simply states Gods amazingness and how he knows everything but doesn't make everything we do sinful or rewardful. Something like video games or simply walking adds is neither sinful nor rewardful but God is fully aware of that. Simply thinking about food and art doesn't make it sinful nor rewardful even though God is fully aware. It simply states God knows all such as our actions+intentions and even the stuff that don't count. Thus unless stated what things we can't think about, it doesn't count.
My point was basically that some terms are self-explanatory and if some examples are given in the Quran, it does not constitute like those are the only instances. We have to use our intuitions and reason to determine what fall within that category and people will come out with different opinions on this.
Actually while I agree with you, I also disagree here as the Quran by that logic FULLY explained excessiveness as simply the idea of excessive being that it leads to sin covers pretty much everything there and thus becomes crystal clear. Regardless case closed there )
Yeah good talk. I think on the view of fahisha we'l probably have to agree to disagree. Thanks and Good luck buddy.
Well lets keep talking about it until we really see there is no point or if we end up understanding things better overall. But yeah good talk )
-
Peace Aryan Warrior, I'm also sorry for this late reply
Thus why is it that you say absolutely NO at having lust whatsoever ever?
I think lust is good if it is done with a zawj or MMA but not with someone you don't know, who may be taken, who may not want to be lusted upon.
About the lashing, I think it's unreasonable and I wouldn't carry out and I would object to it as best as I can. What if the interpretation was wrong? And then I lash someone when my God given faculties were in strong objection.
My own view is that lusting after others that are neither your finace, girlfriend or wife is wrong. The Quran doesn't appear to be explicit in this but it does explicity say that it is better not to lust after others (the restraining of the glance is suggestive of this) but then this is subjective. What you think is reasonable with regards to the restraint of your glance may differ to my view of what counts as a sufficient restraint of the glance.
Anyways you state that looking and thinking aren't that different?
Only in relation to the person who is being looked at or thought about. If they think that they are being looked at in a lustful way or thought about in a lustful way, it may well be that this is not something that they want or something that their boyfriends or husbands want. In this there is not much difference between thought and sight since the person that is being lusted after won't say something like Its ok to think about me lustfully but its not ok to look at me lustfully. Thats why there is not much difference between the two in this aspect.
Just cause they don't want to be lusted after doesn't mean my personal freedom of thinking can't exist.
Your freedom of thought and sight exists so long as it does not harm others unreasonably. A job is fair competition but lusting after someone is entirely different. They have a right to make the claim or request don't lust after me. They don't have the right to make the claim don't compete with me for this job.
God hasn't forbidden us our thoughts, as long as we don't engage in the physical actions or plan to at some point
4812 Alas, you thought that the messenger and the believers would not return to their families, and this was deemed pleasant in your hearts, and you thought the worst thoughts; you were a wicked people!
There is a distinction between good and bad thoughts. If thoughts can be good and bad, then to me this implies that thoughts have moral value. I really can't see how the intentions and thoughts of someone cannot be indicative of their character value in some way. I strongly believe it counts in the overall judgement.
Actually while I agree with you, I also disagree here as the Quran by that logic FULLY explained excessiveness as simply the idea of excessive being that it leads to sin covers pretty much everything there and thus becomes crystal clear. Regardless case closed there
There is no disagreement here. I believe that the Quran if fully detailed and the word transgression was self-explanatory given our capacity of reason and intuitions. What i was suggesting was that ultimately the examples cited in the Quran regarding transgression, did not cover all the possible sorts of transgressions. There are many other possible ways of transgressions.
Yh good talk )
-
I am not restarting this topic nor do I want any new answers to the topic I started or led into but rather I just wanna clarify a part I incorrectly stated
I stated that the dress codes stated in the Quran is like the one in the west for women HOWEVER I shouldn't have stated that as the west allows cleavage and some even allow you to be completely topless which the Quran states to cover your breasts in 2431, thus it would not be allowed.
Just thought i'd clarify that, sorry for the inconvenience. I will not be replying here any further.
Peace!