5:101
-
I meant if there is any fahisha in public that has no legal punishment per the quran by the state. The state can have their own penalties dealing with things etc, but not asking about those. In your view, is there a clear master list of fahisha as per the quran or can some of it be dependent on subjectivity/interpretation? e.g. someone using a sexually suggestive gesture with his hand in public.
Sex is one of our biggest preoccupations ? causing thrills, heartache and downright confusion, as is put by a site explaining latest studies about what happens in the brain during sex. The brain initiates the process, and obviously brain becomes active only on receiving signals from receptors. A suggestive gesture will immediately be responded by the brain suggesting to make advances. Qur'aan advises controlling gaze, the strongest signal which might immediately release dopamine resulting and causing arousal-desire. All gestures inciting for sex are fahashi. Zahara and batana and the word fahshi itself incorporates everything that can become stimuli for illicit sex. This falls under sexual harrassment, if the other party is not willing to respond favourably.
-
Yes, but a sexually suggestive gesture can be used as an angry sexually suggestive gesture. I don't think sexual desire is particularly involved if a car cuts you on the road and you raise your middle finger (or whatever passes for the same in different cultures) at the driver. If we were to call this fahashi since you're saying everything involving something sexual is fahashi (with those not willing to respond favourably), then verbal abuse using mothers and sisters also becomes fahashi, yes...? Catcalling doesn't have to involve explicit sexual references but can be understood to be a form of sexual harrassment. In which case would you say, that as per the quran the state must involve penalties for all such, make it a crime...?
-
Yes, but a sexually suggestive gesture can be used as an angry sexually suggestive gesture. I don't think sexual desire is particularly involved if a car cuts you on the road and you raise your middle finger (or whatever passes for the same in different cultures) at the driver. If we were to call this fahashi since you're saying everything involving something sexual is fahashi (with those not willing to respond favourably), then verbal abuse using mothers and sisters also becomes fahashi, yes...? Catcalling doesn't have to involve explicit sexual references but can be understood to be a form of sexual harrassment. In which case would you say, that as per the quran the state must involve penalties for all such, make it a crime...?
Let us not be naive. What are sex inciting gestures, these are known and understood by adults. No one will take signals for lift or help made towards a driver as sex signal; however if a lady shows her ---by taking away her shirt apart immediately on passing the car and the man sees it in the mirror, certainly he will take it as invitation.
-
Let us not be naive. What are sex inciting gestures, these are known and understood by adults. No one will take signals for lift or help made towards a driver as sex signal; however if a lady shows her ---by taking away her shirt apart immediately on passing the car and the man sees it in the mirror, certainly he will take it as invitation.
Wasn't what I was asking but whatever. Is a fahisha as per the quran only dealing with sex in your view?
Apparently, your known sex inciting gestures/invitations can be misconstrued. Is it subjective to some extent? Of course it is. Yes, people can misconstrue a sign for help as a sexual come on, it's happened in Pakistan with a truck driver and a female car driver. Even asking a male student for help by a female student in school is construed as 'she wants me'. Even females driving cars with no gestures are considered sexually stimulating and thus must want sex because they are putting themselves out there without any males. Yes, it can be deliberately misconstrued, or it can be a symptom of the mindset that construes it. In the case with the truck driver, the reasoning was of course she wanted a man, that's why she was alone on the road without a male accompanying her and she flagged me down. Can we tear such rationalizations apart as ridiculous, of course we can. Does it change the way these events unfold or the realities? Not really.
Do subjective interpretations translate into criminal offenses punishable by the state as per the quran...? As per your example above a woman takes her shirt off in a different car while passing another car and the man sees it in the mirror. He will take it as an invitation...to what? I think you'll find that arousal rather than invitation may fit better generally. It may arouse him but is it going anywhere without any explicit invitation...? The woman could be hot (temperature wise) and taken her shirt off, she would have spilled something on it and couldn't stand wearing the shirt, whatever. Is the man sure it is a deliberate gesture and if he is taking it as an invitation, he is a willing participant. Sure, a guy could get aroused without being willing, but the buck would stop there and there should be no question of him taking it as an invitation.
The mindset here is dangerously close to a guy feeling that the woman wants sex should she show a part of her body. Like some Pakistani's abroad, omg she's showing her cleavage, she wants sex and will want sex with me...why, I do declare! it's open season. Invitations for all! Change that around to wearing a skirt and showing her legs. To a leg man, that's an open invitation. Let's not bring in foot fetishists. Should people be penalised for showing their cleavage and/or legs/other body parts? Is that a crime? Obviously, it's subjective and in cultures where it's common, it's less of a big deal or even considered an open invitation...just because certain parts are showing. What it comes down to is 'willingness' and that is almost always verbal unless the person is mute and drags the willing guy to her boudoir, after nodding her head to the guy furiously or something. There is a difference between being aroused and showing off whatever gestures for example. Someone could be aroused with women fully clothed and a fully clothed woman can show her sexual willingness in various ways that don't involve sexual gestures.
Apparent and concealed can cover all these, but what I'm asking is...are such acts crimes, to be punishable by the state as per the quran if they occur in public...? Can some of them be subjectively interpreted as fawahisha's as per the quran? Are fawahisha's as per the quran clear cut and completely listed? If so, can anything other than that be called a fahisha subject to interpretation, and if so, can it be called as per the quran? I'm not getting a clear answer, I mean yes or no will suffice for a start. I don't want to keep repeating in different ways because it's tedious, as I mentioned, I'll get back to you later if I find I have the time or will to do that.
-
Is a fahisha as per the quran only dealing with sex in your view?
No, not only; the perception and meanings infolded in the Root were mentioned in a post. Qur'aan has used it in other sense also, violation of the protocol of the Messenger by his wives by not standing on his arrival as a gesture of respect and honour for being Messenger and not merely their husband. If my wife does not receive me standing, it is not fahashi.
-
Okay thanks, Mazhar.
-
Apparently, your known sex inciting gestures/invitations can be misconstrued. Is it subjective to some extent? Of course it is. Yes, people can misconstrue a sign for help as a sexual come on, it's happened in Pakistan with a truck driver and a female car driver. Even asking a male student for help by a female student in school is construed as 'she wants me'. Even females driving cars with no gestures are considered sexually stimulating and thus must want sex because they are putting themselves out there without any males. Yes, it can be deliberately misconstrued, or it can be a symptom of the mindset that construes it. In the case with the truck driver, the reasoning was of course she wanted a man, that's why she was alone on the road without a male accompanying her and she flagged me down. Can we tear such rationalizations apart as ridiculous, of course we can. Does it change the way these events unfold or the realities? Not really.
When we talk about generally accepted measures of behaviour, maniacs are excluded. Way back in 1983 a team of Mullahs visited my Director General for donations to run their compaign against fahashi. I was his Assistant Director. He called me and told that these Religious scholars say that the bowlers rub the ciricket ball near their genitalia and it incites our women. I harshly told those mullahs that you people are sex maniacs. In the room their were two bulbs in a double socket; I asked them if these bulbs appear in your dirty minds as bossoms of a woman, should I break them. Get out from here and take your daugters to a sex doctor for treatment.
Taking care is asked while moving in public, women should dress in a manner that their shape is not determinable by onlookers. Every man has liking for a certain shape of a woman, out of four recognized shapes. The dress code takes care of that.
-
Haha cricket balls! Good on you... I wouldn't have thought of bulbs in a double socket as a bosom of a woman though, um, quick thinking there...Now I feel I want to discuss political stuff with you regarding Pakistan, will PM.
-
Apparent and concealed can cover all these, but what I'm asking is...are such acts crimes, to be punishable by the state as per the quran if they occur in public...? Can some of them be subjectively interpreted as fawahisha's as per the quran? Are fawahisha's as per the quran clear cut and completely listed? If so, can anything other than that be called a fahisha subject to interpretation, and if so, can it be called as per the quran? I'm not getting a clear answer, I mean yes or no will suffice for a start. I don't want to keep repeating in different ways because it's tedious, as I mentioned, I'll get back to you later if I find I have the time or will to do that.
Since the meanings of fahahsi in Arabic are clear cut and state has also the authority to make it a cognizable offence, it can be listed in the law instead of leaving it open to interpretation; for an Islamic state. It can start from listing down apparent fahashi detriment to public. Some are already perhaps in the law book, here in Pakistan.
-
Mazhar, I have my reservations regarding something clear cut applied in particular ways due to various reasons. We can definitely discuss them further. The balance between enforceable laws in public and personal freedoms in public is difficult to achieve and probably would or should go through cycles.
What happened to this thread...?? _
Salm... >
Dude, honestly what is with these types of comments. If you don't find what you're looking for, read another thread...if you want 5101 to be discussed, post something along those lines or better yet, discuss it. It's not as if I'm saying that's it, 5101 is dead and gone and no one may post anything about it ever. Or even that I said, ONLY 5101 etc can ever be discussed in my op. I've mentioned this in posts on the board before, there are natural ways a discussion can go from the original topic and it's not a big deal depending on how it's done. I don't post on various threads due to various reasons; wanting to discuss something on my thread that is brought up in regards to the original topic and so on is causing issues to the point of people stating the obvious and posting googly eyes at the shock and horror...? No one is being rude, impolite or acting like a jerk on the thread in regards to the topics discussed, the thread starter is cool with it, so live and let live a bit eh )
-
There was another comment saying the same which wasn't a joke, so forgive me if it was supposed to be taken as a joke, I didn't find it how it could be taken as one or my sense of humour is very strange. In fact I was so annoyed I thought of posting a video of a test cricket match but decided that would be too cruel, even for me.
Peace
-
There was another comment saying the same which wasn't a joke, so forgive me if it was supposed to be taken as a joke, I didn't find it how it could be taken as one or my sense of humour is very strange. In fact I was so annoyed I thought of posting a video of a test cricket match but decided that would be too cruel, even for me.
Test cricket? ;D You still remember one of my weaknesses. ;D
Okay, don't kill me with such boredomeness (or I will need faint emoticon...).
and posting googly eyes at the shock and horror...?
You mean this one? ---> _
If I'm not mistaken, I saw one of my Muslim sisters used it on an art site, and I suppose she used it not for serious purpose.
I'm sorry, I guess I didn't think that it will invite serious responses.
Salm.
-
Test cricket? ;D You still remember one of my weaknesses. ;D
Okay, don't kill me with such boredomeness (or I will need faint emoticon...).
Yep, and I'm going to use it one day.You mean this one? ---> _
If I'm not mistaken, I saw one of my Muslim sisters used it on an art site, and I suppose she used it not for serious purpose.
I'm sorry, I guess I didn't think that it will invite serious responses.
Salm.
Nah, that emoticon is something denoting a 'what the heck'/'can't believe what I'm reading' type of meaning, the closest correlating emoticon for that on this site would be , or this wow used sarcastically, even this hypno if one was to stretch it to it's maximum or minimum depending on mood.
-
Forgive me i bring a hadith to throw light on this. I can't remember textually, but it is in itself an indictment of hadiths.
It goes int he sense that people asked the prophet this, and then this, and then this, asking for details of this and more details, and he was bothered not because he did not wnat to answer or they annoyed him but because he felt that automatically when he said anything they would take as an order and not as his feeling or opinion, so at a certain point he said do not ask me so much, because afterwards you will feel bound by what I say, and it is not obligations it is just my opinion.
The thing is that may be the Qur'an points to that. That we are not in a position yet to know certain things, and if we push we may get answer we cannot understand or do not make sense, because we lack the knowledge of the ground on which those questions rest.
For instance, scientific matters. Any question about ADN or which inolved it at a certain time, my throw people into the weirdest beliefs, because they did not have a map of where those things fit. So, in due course they might be answered but not there and then.
That is something I could make of it right now.
Salaam
I completely agree, as people usually asks questions like "What is God" "have you seen signs" , things completely out of explanations for some level of knowledge that lead to instant rejection without thinking if it could be the truth or not. Try to enter a group of atheists and enjoy giveup
-
Yep, and I'm going to use it one day.
I better prepare some extra lives then. ;D
Nah, that emoticon is something denoting a 'what the heck'/'can't believe what I'm reading' type of meaning, the closest correlating emoticon for that on this site would be o, or this wow used sarcastically, even this hypno if one was to stretch it to it's maximum or minimum depending on mood.
Thanks for telling me, sis. I think I need to be careful next time if I decide to use it again. )
Salm.
-
Al Bender, I'll try to put it in a clearer way...I was asking if the questions that were being asked ( = if revealed to you would harm you) were going to be answered after/during? (not sure what the consensus is on what the right word is here) the quran has been sent down or the reasoning behind why we shouldn't be asking such questions (= if revealed to you would harm you) be clear after/during the quran has been sent down.
salaam,
A sentence of 72 words, 3 brackets and 2 slashes is a clearer way brickwall
If we knew the questions would harm us, why would we still seek answers unless we were self destructive...?
First of al I think the verse is translated wrong by all translators I read so far.
In my opinion this part " " is 1 sentence. But all the translators I read so far see this part " " also as a sentence or as a sub phrase.
FM translation if you ask about them after the Qur'an has been sent down, then they will become clear to you. God pardons for them,
I think it should be read something like this
if you ask about them after/while/during the Qur'an has been sent down, it will be cleared for you the pardoning of Allah for them.It looks almost the same but there is a subtle nuance, I hope you can understand what I mean. I think if you understand this little difference it will help a lot to understand the verse better.
RED Not the questions will harm us but the answers ignore
btw. I believe "harm" is a bit mistranslated. Not harm us but brings is in psychological black state.GREEN No we are not self destructive, we are curious and also proud. This causes us to ask for things we are not yet ready for, thus when we have an answer to our question, the first thing we do is object against the answer even if we can not bring a single argument against it. So we become rejecters.
BUT if we ask them " " then the pardoning of Allah for them will be cleared to us.I left the Arabic part " " untranslated because you will reject my understanding, so do not ask me about it, and be a mumina and a do what is advised to you in 5101 >(
But if we were more aware of the reasons for asking said questions and the possible ramifications we'd understand? Thus, can it be referring to something other than the fact that it's not the questions/questioning but the mindset behind the questions...? So were these questions going to be answered let's just say by the quran, or the reasoning behind why the questions are being left open ended or whatever also by the quran. The fact that we are pardoned for asking them, but then a people before us had asked the same and became rejecters, begs the question whether it was the answers or the line of reasoning behind the inquiries that did them in. If it was the answers, I find it hard to accept that the truth can make one a rejecter, hence must be the line of reasoning/mindset behind the questions. A little knowledge being a dangerous thing also comes to mind.
I hope my answer above answers also these questions.
Salaam,
Bender -
There were no further responses regarding the topic, when there are, I'll discuss them. The present discussion has gone towards zina because of an example used while posting about the topic, I don't see it as a problem since some people are Bender is slower to post than others, various things get talked about in the meanwhile. I personally find it of interest. Do you have anything to add to 'imaginary adultery punishment'...? If not, that's okay.
Salaam,
RED I know you had me in mind >
What a subtle but nasty way to give green light to your off topic discussion and in mean time speak bad about me >Salaam,
Bender