How to overcome the sin of lust/temptation
-
Peace HP_TECH,
Thank you for your post.
Not that it matters greatly, but here is what we are actually commanded to say brother
2396-98
Push away evil with that which is better. We are better aware of what they describe.
And say ?My Lord, I seek refuge with You from the whispers of the devils.?
?And I seek refuge with you O Lord that they should come near.?Thank you for sharing that verse.
-
In my first post in this thread I mentioned that I have found/discovered a very deep and profound book that sheds light on the sin of lust/temptation. The title of the book is Climbing Mount Purgatorio. And the book is written by the muslim scholar/thinker Hamza Yusuf. I found the information about lust (in the book) to be very insightful/enlightening. I'd like to share a few paragraphs from the book with you.
A few paragraphs from page 6-7 in the book
Lust is only possible with animal spirits and with vitality, and the excessiveness of it was a luxury, hence the name. In her essay on the deadly sins, Dorothy Sayers identifies two main reasons people are susceptible to the sin of luxuria
It may be through sheer exuberance of animal spirits in which case a sharp application of the curb may be all that is needed to bring the body into subjection and remind it of its proper place in the scheme of man?s twofold nature. Or?and this commonly happens in periods of disillusionment like our own, when philosophies are bankrupt and life appears without hope?men and women may turn to lust in sheer boredom and discontent, trying to find in it some stimulus which is not provided by the drab discomfort of their mental and physical surroundings. When that is the case, stern rebukes and restrictions are worse than useless. It is as though one were to endeavor to cure anemia by bleeding; it only reduces further an already impoverished vitality. The mournful and medical aspect of twentieth century pornography and promiscuity strongly suggests that we have reached one of these periods of spiritual depression, where people go to bed because they have nothing better to do. In other words, the ?regrettable moral laxity? of which respectable people complain may have its root cause not in Luxoria at all, but in some other of the sins of society, and may automatically begin to cure itself when that root cause is removed.
Is the ?root cause? not lust, but simply boredom? Kierkegaard believed that man?s inability to find any real meaning in life resulted in an indifference, cynicism, and boredom with it. The aesthete, who believes he is leading a life in pursuit of pleasure, exemplifies the nihilistic malaise of the modern age. The aesthete?s hedonistic life is rooted in his boredom. The irony is that the things that he finds to entertain and distract him from his boredom soon become the very sources of boredom ?The boredom that comes later is usually the fruit of a misguided diversion. It seems doubtful that a remedy against boredom can give rise to boredom, but it can give rise to boredom only insofar as it is used incorrectly.?
I deeply recommend the above-mentioned book.
You can download the book from this link
https//www.zaytuna.edu/search/?cx=002397786386501349090%3A02uby0ud8m4&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=Download&x=0&y=0
Click on the link "Climbing Mount Purgatorio" on the top of the page (to download the book).
-
Taro, I think you are makig too many assumptions may be because you believe that what you feel everybody feels. There are all kinds of people.
You said anger lasts very little and lust stays. Not so. The expresion of anger may last more or less, anger is not the same as the expression of anger. Also, even expression, it can last very long. The only limit may be the physical effort limit, exactly as with lust. The only limit is physical capability. Anger may not pour in expressionn but that does not mean that it is ot there.
I insist, lust is just like any other sin. Desire is not a sin, indulging in ustful desire beyond what is healthy is in, like all sins the sing is against oneself. You undo yourself. The question is to know what you feel, to ackinowledge what you feel and then take the reins. desire el helathy a powerful, but like everything else you must hold the reins, same as with anger. Anger is not wrong, what is wrong is to lt angr lead you. But anger gives the necessary push to fight against wrong, against abuse, against misfortune, one misfortune or other people misfortune. But one must hold the reins. Same with desire. Lust is giving in to the pitfalls of desire.
Whe the Qur'an says fawahish in 6.151 and 7.33 as you quoted, is does not say lustful actions as you intepret, precisely what it says ma dhahara minha wa ma batana, fawahish may be not an action, may be a thought,may be an indulging in thoughts that are not healthy and which obviously if you indulge inthem you are coming ear to fahisha, precisely what the aya says not to do, to come near it.
Other people's clothes or doing have nothing to do with it. You have to do with it. whatever it is.
Desir is about the deepest longest standing passion of a human, as you say, it is thirst, it is hunger, it is desire for the deepest experience and feeling, for death even. It is the motor of human transcendance,it is the inner voice who calls as to the most unknown.
You mention aya 16.161 but you must have made an error because it doesn't say what you quote. May be you can check.
Pleasure is pleasure, nothing wrong with it , but obviously it must be a healthy pleasure.
Lust inside marriage and outside marriage. You can be a pig inside marriage, not only outside. And I mean ugly and mean.
I really feel that there is a lot of darkness about sex in people's minds. There is also a lot of curiosity which may also lead many people, specially the young to commit errors, sometimes heavy ones, or to become obssessed. Also sex is very prone to be taken as a show of worldly success. Also as a measure of power.
Sex in astrology belongs to the eigth house, which is also the house of power, of death... We could say that it is the house of desire, because it deals with the most trascendent urges and mos subconscious passions. We are servants of death while we are alive because we know we will finally give in to it. Sex is just a pretaste of death.
Today people do not want to know anything about death, and makes light of sex, a part of the entertainment industry. Also sex becomes a sewer for othr things. People try to compensate with sex failures or the sense of failures in other realms. It being instintive we do not grsp it intellectually just as we do nnot grasp intllectualy many times our emotions, all those things become a muddle where many people get lost.
Sex is not a sin, but an aya, however to make light of sex is dangerous and takes its toll, at the social level and at the personal level.
Salaam
-
I think lust (outside of marriage/commitment) is a sin in islam, if it's acted upon. I believe that lust (outside of marriage/commitment), if acted upon, is different from many other sins. And it seems that lust (outside of marriage/commitment), is worse than many other sins. Because the Quran suggests that it's forbidden to go/come near lewdness (a word which is synonymous with the word lustfulness).
The biggest problem is the blindness incurred by this behavior. One who gives in to more and more instinctive impulses gets blinded by it. The same is a person who is jealous about things, if one is not remedying it this may derail and it will be spiritually detrimental. Or if the person is inclined towards greed and begins to illicitly profit at someone else's expense (fraud/theft) just because they like to hoard wealth. All of what I mentioned is fueled by the human species Homo Sapiens' instinct just the same as the desire to copulate. Illicit sex is just the ultimate detrimental act, but even "charging up" your sex drive by triggering the arousal is obviously detrimental in itself as you reinforce the instinctive drive.
Just as Jesus elaborated upon the "Ten Commandments", the point with the Decree is not the case it might be referred to as a law but as falling for the "stumbling stones" is spiritually detrimental. This is further complicated since the sectarian interpreters of old have misrepresented the Arabic word "haram" which means sanctified/goodly/goody into forbidden which the word does not mean. The reason why it appears that haram means forbidden is because they have not translated (anema) properly which should read "It is not" ( is comprised of plus , i.e. = "It is not for you goodly/sanctified to".
Another point is that in ancient Middle-East, a treasure wives construct was referred to as "harem". Why do you think this was so? It was because they considered that this was what had been blessed to them. The word haram has never meant anything but sanctified, but incompetent interpreters have made it into something which it means not.
Thus the thing is that God is not saying "it is forbidden you" but is saying "It is not good for you to..." Sectarians love to create prohibitions it seems for their Pagan cults while God is simply caring about your sanity (islam) by saying what is not good for you.
Sectarians have also loved to create myriad laws while there was just a few commandments in a decree. If people had contemplated their application rather than conjectured a lot of unnecessary dogmatic laws then the World would be a much better place. Even people were spoiled with Jesus elaborating for them concerning the Decree. Everything in fighting Satan is available in those ten notifications about stumbling stones. Jesus did just that, he contemplated upon those "commandments" and gave his recommendation to the crowd. It is implicit that the commandments are also to avoid the instinct from coming forth in a human.
The word ?sin,? which, outside of the religious circle, has fallen out of favor in the modern world, is possibly related to a Saxon word that meant ?to wander.?
Yes, a sin is obviously something you do when you "wander astray". One is getting more and more blind when they let themselves indulge in what the "Ten Commandments" stand firm against. "Sins" intensify the blindness in a person. It should be remember that acts that border towards the extremity of the "ten commandments", e.g. murder such as aggressive feelings is also inflicting worsening blindness in the person. Even if a person never does physically kill a person in their life cycle, they may have killed people in their mind several times over in it. The point is that the spiritually detrimental effect on the soul is what matters overall.
Same for when Jesus said "...I tell you do not even look upon another woman with desire", i.e. the instinctive arousal in the person should be avoided because the person is negatively affected by this. Some people are perhaps very strict about chastity, but if they have tried to not guard their mind and let themselves be aroused by a man's/woman's body, they might notice it will get harder and harder to resist each time they do not guard themselves. Eventually they may begin to also desire increasing physical pleasure to compensate for the arousal and this might be very distracting if it occupies the person's available spare time. A balanced amount of sex activity, sure it does not matter, but if much of the time is wasted on this primate drive then this is obviously spiritually detrimental. A Spirit does also not require sexual stimulation even if the Body does. Everything of this, not only the sex drive, will occupy the person's mind and hampers the spiritual development.
Why may a person work as in doing their daily grind? They seek materialism in many cases and this may also hamper the spiritual development because the planning to get rich will occupy time which the person could spend contemplating and refining their character.
As usual people take the worst of what I say and think I argue against working at all. The case is that one ought to work with what either provides them their daily bread and preferably no more and/or helps other people. Related to this I would say I have two jobs actually, I work on reinterpreting Quran plus I have currently a full-time employment. Working on the divine I would never collect any fiscal matter from, so I have only one job paying in monetary funds, but simultaneously my unpaid job privately brings more contribution to the society than my job as a shop clerk in order to provide for my family. Of course my paying job is not worthless since I can help people find themselves a useful carpet for their home (for example). My paid job does contribute since the government takes taxes from me on top of this though. It is a kind of nice forced charity.
Everything I spoke about above is in those "Ten Commandments" which actually God refers to as (stumbling) stones/preventors if one can interpret Quran properly. The sectarian crowd has mistakenly or deliberately misrepresented that too. I think they could not understand it and thus they just generated some "feasible" translation according to them.
Beginning to unravel the grave errors in the interpretation of the ancient Arabic is a start when it goes to the Arabic words, but the truth is the errors are worse than minor. A convincing percentage of people think I am deluded concerning the interpretation I am unto and presented here on the forum, but I am actually unto something big. I argue that more people should actually begin to listen to me. Obviously it is up to them though, still.
However, it seems that it's harder to rein in lust than to rein in anger.
I consider it a lust to be in anger. You release your anger and this will please your mind, specifically the "neanderthal"-like primate brain of yours and will suppress/seal off the growing Spirit. On top of that, spending time in a wrathful mood is a waste of time which you could use for more bright activity.
That we often take pleasure in seeing violence on TV, movies, video games, MMA fights, et cetera, is due to the same "neanderthal"-like brain. The pleasure taken from viewing these things go under the heading (progression towards) of "do not kill" in the "ten commandments" and it is spiritually detrimental, particularly if we really waste too much time indulging in it. Romanticizing violence may also cause ourselves to be more prone to respond violently in provocative situations and we may be more eager to seek brutal revenge for injustice. We may also "normalize" the behavior as setting it as a social norm. Humans are easily "victimized" since it seeks to imitate others and not be different from others and have group belonging. The affection from peers is more severe on people than they may care to think. It is important to reflect upon how people affect you.
It is the body (of the Satan) which loves violence as the beast it is. It may be wise to limit one's time spent on that and counter the increased stimulation with further contemplation about one's personal behavior.
The science branch of psychology has all the material which I write about here in the post and it is widely available and thus I am not merely rambling about what I do not know. I am relatively well-versed in psychology and I mix in my knowledge here since it is obviously fit to do so on the spiritual topic of faith. Psychology is also a very abstract subject, one of the finer and more useful of human sciences.
Just like in many others instinctively driven behaviors, the "success" in respective activity, e.g. the violence acts mentioned above, releases dopamine to the brain which is an addictive signal substance and causes increased probability that the person will repeat the behavior more frequently unless they reflect upon it rationally and are concerned about its detrimental affection and do something about it, i.e. avoid the behavior in order to avoid the release of dopamine in the future. It may be better that the person seeks an alternative, less instinctively "harmful" activity to release their dopamine neurotransmitter sedative, if they really have to. A moderate sense of balanced well-being might be preferable and actually by avoiding the deviant release of dopamine to any greater extent but rather keeping a steady flow will likely yield a greater sense of well-being.
What feels good to the Body may certainly not be spiritually developing. Getting addicted to dopamine may cause a person to exaggerate their respective activity to trigger its release. It becomes a hedonistic struggle to please the Body. It works just the same on the topic of sex when the mind drifts towards that, e.g. thinking of nude bodies, "doing it", sexual behavior and what triggers the sex drive like when a woman speaks alluringly. When drifting towards that looseness, one tends to do more to receive sexual stimulation. It becomes a struggle in order to release dopamine. Underneath the surface of dopamine release we can involve several other signal substances as well, but I will not delve into those here. It is irrelevant.
It seems that unnatural desires (e.g. the pursuit of pleasure), is detrimental to ones spiritual and moral growth in this life.
Good. You have understood the point yourself without my elaborated lecture above. However I think that most desires in life are "unnatural". We should act "to be" rather than desire things. Logic should be our primary concern. I do not desire to live (as in a hedonistic apparition), but logically speaking I have to do so. If I desired to live in a Body here and really desired to prolong my life as long as I could, then this would be a desire of mine. But I simply am, and this is what God is expecting as well, i.e. that a person "is". That is also the meaning of the word "Allah" (such who is). God IS, but so is the person who is. If you are a slave to the hormones of your Body, you ARE NOT, because that distraction primarily occupies the mind and the Body clouds you rendering you blind in your pursuit of dopamine release as discussed above. You are thus a slave to your Body, the whole system in fact.
The interesting thing is that what God really expects is an independently conscious and associated being who is commendable for becoming self-aware by knowing themselves, knowing about their (co)existence in God. God is NOT willing for a lifeless dependent person who is a slave to the system, even if the sectarian Pagan crowd has willed that for millennia in their own delusion to the Body. Jesus, roughly 2000 years ago, tried to enlighten people about that, but Muslims corrupted his words into combating association and the Jews rejected him utterly. In Jesus' teaching, association with God is the primary concern in life and so does Quran teach underneath all the corruption. It is revolting that these people utterly made a humiliation of a phrase such as "la elah ila allah" into speaking about gods while it speaks of 'being'.
And according to the Quran, shirk (polytheism/idolworship) is the only unforgivable sin in islam (see verse 44
The interesting thing is that in the real account of Quran, "shirk" is spoken of as something positive. Because the fools turned 'ma' into what and 'la' into not, so they were able to mess this up.
The word "shirk" does not mean idolatry even in the sectarian understanding but it literally is claimed to mean "association" which it actually does. If you associate yourself with something then you are a mushrik. In a convincing number of occurrences of Quran, shirk actually means something positive. Obviously if you associate yourself with God, then this is a good thing, in order that you are like Jesus said "In the Father and the Father in you". The opposite case would be dissociation and distancing with God which is obviously a negative thing. The biggest danger is when you both dissociate yourself and even think you are greater than the "Father" such as Pharaoh. But one cannot become greater than their master, BUT they can become of a similar caliber which is the whole purpose in islam, to become complete. You should ask the Rabb, "Please Rabb, complete my training. Let me share of your qualities. Save me from my contradiction (which is the Body)."
People may find that traditional faith is spiritually developing for them, but in fact the distant nature to the Rabb causes them to be detrimentally affected. The God phenomenon does not work as people think. God comes from within you first of all, from within your Spirit. God created your Spirit from His image and inserted you into a Body in order to test you, in order to "cultivate" X number of replicas of Himself under heavy delusion. In the end, only a scarce number of individuals will actually make it. The reason why the rest fail is because they do not "separate themselves from the Flesh". "All their roots grew into this World".
And then when the "test environment" is over and the World gets destroyed (by some stimulus), the successful people will be managers (angels/malekat) in God and God will repeat the process again in a new cycle. God is a growing Grand Consciousness, expanding its abstract "size" (or perhaps "horizons". God does not take any space but it is like a singularity. Everything falls down to One, but the question is how expansive that Oneness is. There is room for more conscious hosts within. This is the spiritual development we are struggling towards, to be Being independent and souls to be reckoned with rather than "automated" beings being slave to that automation. That is the real interpretation of "Al-naar", i.e. to be "fated". It is better not to have a fate but reach dissolution and merging into the Rabb as an independent soul. This is what is meant in the elder scriptures with becoming "sons of God" alternatively "children of God". Children of Israel is an analog for that relationship, like a code name, and thus there are many "stray sheep among the Children of Israel". I am a child of Israel, and you are a child of Israel, Taro, and Huruf is a child of Israel. Even the more aggressive and unfriendly people here on the forum are "stray sheep from among the Children of Israel". Note that I did not imply that any of the mentioned names were of "stray sheep". However an unfriendly and aggressive person is a "stray sheep", or the person who is preoccupied in a realm of sexual pleasure or the person who is chasing for money a convincing portion of their awake time.
Summary is that desire is more or less always a negative thing. But sometimes the show of affection is required to avoid misunderstanding from among the lifeless people, and because it is logically advantageous. You do not win the trust of people who have only gradual awakening if you do not fall down to their level, without succumbing to their joys. Why do you think Jesus participated when people were having feasts? He tried to be one among the people, even if he needed none of it for his personal gain. He had removed his beast's 'I' and lived for the sake of rationality.
Sectarian people who consider others "unworthy" and unclean much like ISIS (as the extreme example but I know it is prevalent among mainstream Muslims), they utterly miss the point. A prophet would go to "sinners" and those people "who need a healer" the most. There is no limitation on the people they would go to. They would even go to a party where there was a bunch of people who were drinking alcohol. If they did not recognize him as a prophet , then he could not immediately begin to tell them that "do not drink alcohol because God does not look well upon that". In fact, alcohol is not forbidden by Quran, but it is advised to avoid such substances due to their spiritually detrimental effect.
A prophet is the best of psychologists and would use a myriad of psychological tricks on their audience. They know exactly why people behave as they do, because they know what the human is. This way they can avoid personal danger too. If in part of their psychological provocation they are getting in harms way then the Father will protect them through the prophesies anyway. A prophet is always constantly working on triggering the mental awareness of people and get them to reflect. A prophet could show up everywhere and would not just remain with his kin "for what difference does it make?" The one who is whole does not need a healer. A problem is that people always look for exact instructions from someone else while they know and could contemplate themselves. A prophet's main duty is to help others help themselves and that by making them reflect. And there are no religious rites and rituals but that is fabricated by people without knowledge. Anything that keeps a person on target is plausible and thus there are multiple approaches to God but none ordered, and if a practice has no useful meaning then there is no use in doing it. God has no whatsoever need for personal worship and the only "worship" worth anything is imitation of what God would do in each particular situation in life. If God needed worship in Pagan terms then this god is not real and fallible as a human and a hypocrite since it asks others to not be jealous but itself is utterly jealous contradicting its own Decree. The traditional interpretation of God does not add up, if one applies contemplation, without involving religious scriptures such as Quran. The deity is very primitive and falling even behind today's human level of intelligence whereof many people today become atheists since the primitive deists are deluding them into conviction there is no 'Superior Being' in existence.
And the best of listeners are reading this without being overly argumentative but rather quietly contemplate it using their divinely blessed intelligence. And then they drop the illusion of Islam and adopt islam; a condition of Being totally complete (b ' asim all-ah al-rahmani al-raheem). And they revert into considering what Jesus says in the Biblical Gospels without the taint of Christianity. And they might if they so please, consider listening to what I got to say. No strings attached though. I am only there to help people help themselves and for that I am of assistance. I would "be attached/care to"* see independent beings who grow into completion rather than being blind lifeless sheep.
- The Semitic word usually rendered as love in translations does not really mean "love", i.e. an emotional fallacy but is retaining to what is logical for development. God speaks in such terms. Being pleased without hormones rushing is a thing to practice on. When a person can sense the difference they are progressing a lot.
One example of love being improperly used is in the Biblical Gospels when Jesus says "love your enemy", but Jesus does not mean bodily love but refers to "care", i.e. "care for your enemy" which means you should emotionally detached do what is the most rational move in order to improve the consciousness of this person, since an enemy of you has some kind of person problem. No sane person has enemies. God has no enemies. Sinners are no enemies except of themselves. If we hate ISIS (called Daesh) we are bad people, but we should care for them. However, we should not love them. We should seek a means to reach their consciousness. We should not seek to harm them. Inside their souls they are in a state of chaos and they suffer more than the people victimized by their cruelty. By each sin they do they drift further away from God, which means Being (consciously). The sins have overwhelmed them. In ways, if we are powerfully developed, we could pity them.
To make a meaningful impact on the success of countering Daesh, everyone has to employ a massive amount of psychology and pedagogy and fire will only bring more fire to the fire. Analogically speaking, violence will not be the solution bringing an end to them. Violence can only help save victims of the terror if one breaks through their defenses to save hostages. The real victims, the members of Daesh, they need proper information. For every misinformed poor fool who is bombed into oblivion two new fools will come from somewhere else, because no one has dealt with the misinformation. The delusion of religion is among the worst things that has ever happened to mankind and gods is the worst of them. To even think that one has to go to war because of God is just an absurd thought, even less by dubiously forcing that god's belief upon other humans. Defending the poor victims is slightly commendable, but it does not root out the source of the problem.
I agree. The Quran suggests that Iblis (the devil) has no power/influence over the faithful servants of God (see verse 1542 and 1765).
I would say "Satan" has no power over people who are consciously aware and conform in order to combat themselves, more precisely the Satan in them. The more independently aware they get, the more they can fend off its affliction. Everything is about coming alive, to not be a slave to the illusive system.
Be safe
Amenuel -
You know what Taro I miscalculated your character a while ago. I see now you seem to be a humble fellow,
for that I apologizeOne should not be so quick to judge people. Advice only. No offense intended.
Be safe
Amenuel -
One should not be so quick to judge people. Advice only. No offense intended.
Be safe
Amenuel@ Man, okay. None taken.
But please do not take this to offense when I say this. I feel a certain way towards you.
I cannot be certain whether you are just a troll (spreading confusion/controversial ideas) or confused/misinformed.
At first I leaned strongly to the first of the two, now I am leaning towards the latter. That perhaps your intentions are truly good, but your reasoning and sources are flawed. Although, I do not think that intentions alone are sufficient.Let me borrow for this time only a technique from Taro and cite something.
I once heard
"Careless effort can be harmful" -
You know what Taro I miscalculated your character a while ago. I see now you seem to be a humble fellow,
I'm glad that you see him that way now. I think Hiroshi is a beautiful soul, and I think that he is among of good men who are very rare these days.
Btw, I like your current avatar @ HP_TECH! Nice quote and rightly put, imo.
Peace.
-
Peace huruf,
Whe the Qur'an says fawahish in 6.151 and 7.33 as you quoted, is does not say lustful actions as you intepret, precisely what it says ma dhahara minha wa ma batana, fawahish may be not an action, may be a thought,may be an indulging in thoughts that are not healthy and which obviously if you indulge inthem you are coming ear to fahisha, precisely what the aya says not to do, to come near it.
Well, I said that the Quran suggests that all lewd actions are forbidden. I didn't say that the Quran suggests that all lustful actions are forbidden. I haven't used the words lustful actions in my post at all. Also, in "Quran A reformist translation", the word Al-fawahisha has been translated as lewd action, not as thoughts. That being said, you might be right when you say that Al-fawahisha may not be an action, but may be a thought. Perhaps the word Al-fawahisha has been mistranslated in verse 733 in Quran A reformist translation.
Say, "My Lord has forbidden all lewd action, what is obvious from them and what is subtle, and sin, aggression without cause, your setting up partners with God that were never authorized by Him, and saying about God what you do not know."
I'd like to share another english translation of the same verse.
Say "Verily, my Sustainer has forbidden only shameful deeds, be they open or secret, and sinning, and unjustified envy, and the ascribing of divinity to aught beside Him - since He has never bestowed any warrant therefor from on high and the attributing unto God of aught of which you have no knowledge."
Other people's clothes or doing have nothing to do with it. You have to do with it. whatever it is.
I know. Hence why I mentioned that we should lower our gaze. I believe that we are responsible in regards to being chaste/pure, not others. From my understanding of the Quran, no one has the right to force others to dress in a modest way. Because there is no compulsion in islam. But every muslim(submitter/peacemaker) can and and should lower their gaze. Because the Quran commands muslims (submitters/peacemakers) to lower their gaze.
You mention aya 16.161 but you must have made an error because it doesn't say what you quote. May be you can check.
You are right/correct. Thank you for pointing out this error. Instead of writing 11116 I wrote 16116. My bad.
Quran 11116 BUT, ALAS, among those generations before your time there were no people endowed with any virtue146 - who would speak out against the corruption on earth -except the few of them whom We saved , whereas those who were bent on evildoing only pursued pleasures which corrupted their whole being, and so lost themselves in sinning.
-
Peace everyone,
You might be surprised to know this, but a lot of muslims struggle with the sin of lust/temptation. And it seems that a lot of people don't talk to anyone about their struggle with the sin of lust/tempation due to shame and/or guilt. I have talked/corresponded with many people during my lifetime. But only a few of them have told me (either directly or indirectly) about their struggle with the sin of lust/temptation. I too used to struggle with the sin of lust/temptation in the past. But thankfully, I no longer struggle with this sin. I doubt that there are any members in FM who have never gave in to the sin of lust/temptation during their lifetime. The Quran suggests that every human being has transgressed during his/her lifetime (see verse 1661).
I have found/discovered a very deep and profound book that sheds light on the sin of lust/temptation. And this book has helped me enormously, when it comes to overcoming the sin of lust/temptation. I am planning to share this book with you in the future (in this thread). The book is written by a muslim scholar/thinker, by the way.
I think the topic/subject of lust/temptation is a very important topic/subject. And as far as I know, there are no threads on FM about this topic/subject. Perhaps many people in FM have been reluctant to discuss this topic/subject, due to it's controversial nature. Thus, it seems that this issue has been "swept under the rug." I want this thread to be a thread where we can share our thoughts and views about this highly important issue. And hopefully, we can learn a lot from each other. My hope is that members in FM will find this thread interesting and/or useful/helpful.
I know a man who is very pure/chaste in the town I am residing in. Even though he don't follow Quran-based islam, he doesn't like any type of lewdness/immoral behavior. Also, he thinks that sexual relations before marriage is wrong. And he has told me that he isn't going to have "sexual relations" before marriage. But once a while, he breaks his moral principles and goes near lewdness. For example, he watches a movie with a sexual scene or he watches pictures of the opposite sex with little clothes on. Once, he told me that he don't know why this happens. In other words, he didn't know why gave in to lust/temptation and wronged himself. I told him that nothing happens without a reason. And I told him that every effect has a cause. And I told him that if we want to remove the effect, we must discover the cause. As a saying goes, "Remove the cause and the effect will cease."
Some people claim that "history will repeat itself until the lesson is learned." It seems that as long as someone doesn't learn why he/she gives in to the sin of lust, he/she is bound to repeat his/her sin/mistake. I once read a quote from a text about religion. And the quote went like this "The cause of lust is desire." But what is desire? And is there only one cause of lust? Or are there several causes of lust? These questions are worth thinking about, in my opinion.
From my understanding of the Quran, it commands muslims to NOT go near lewdness (see verse 6151). If someone watches a Hollywood movie with a sexual scene, is he/she going near lewdness? Or if someone watches a picture of the opposite sex with little clothes on, is he/she going near lewdness? I think that these questions are worth pondering upon.
I have a few questions that I would like to ask you. Have you ever struggled with the sin of lust/temptation? Or do you know someone who has struggled with the sin of lust temptation? What do you believe is the cause of lust?
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts and views guys.
I have this sin of lust problem and i tried and i am still trying to remove completely
but sometimes it happens that i unfortunately watches a sexual scene from you-tube which i dont want to watch. Inshahallah this sin will not remain in my soul. I want to be pure free from all this sins especially the sin of lust.
And i only take help of Allah to remove this sin from me. If i do anything evil it means that there has really not been any mercy of allah upon me
1253 Indeed, the soul is a persistent enjoiner of evil, except those upon which my Lord has mercy. Indeed, my Lord is Forgiving and Merciful." -
Peace everyone,
In my view, Hamza Yusuf's book is the best book ever written about the topic/subject of lust. Because it identifies the root cause of lust. I would like to share some paragraphs from the book "Climbing Mount Purgatorio" with you. But before I share some paragraphs from this book, I'd like to mention that Hamza Yusuf has made at least one lecture with the topic/subject of lust. And for those of you who would like to watch a video with his lecture (instead of reading his book), I recommend watching his lecture. You can send me a PM and I will send you a link to a video with his lecture. Anyway, let me share some paragraphs from his book with you.
Some paragraphs from page 7-10 in the book
This is the inevitable state of the aesthete who lives for pleasure. He seeks pleasure to remedy his boredom, yet the very thing he seeks as a remedy becomes a source of his spiritual ailment once again.
Consciously or not, the hot sins of gula, luxuria, and avaritia are rooted in attempts to address one?s spiritual vacuum. Each begins with the pursuit of real goods, but not correctly as the means to real happiness that comes from an integrated ethical life rooted in virtue and responsibility. Rather, they are an end in themselves, the pursuit of pleasure for pleasure?s sake. Eating not to live, but living to eat; loving not to give, but lusting to take; accumulating wealth not to support, but to create a false sense of security. In short, they are sins driven by emptiness within, mere distractions to avoid confronting a lack of knowledge about life?s purpose and relevance.
Ibn Hazm (d. 1064), the great Spanish ethicist and theologian of Muslim Andalusia, believed that at the core of the human being was dread, that every action that motivated man was an attempt to ward off an underlying anxiety (tard hamm) ?Thus the seeker of wealth in fact seeks to repel through it the anxiety of poverty; the seeker of fame is primarily concerned to repel the anxiety of subordination or subservience; the seeker of pleasure simply wishes to repel the anxiety of missing its enjoyment.? Eight centuries later, we hear an echo in Kierkegaard?s observation that the seeker of pleasure is attempting to repel boredom, an idea consonant with Ibn Hazm?s notion of repelling anxiety because boredom?s real threat is that in a state of ennui, we are facing a terrifying confrontation with our mortality and irrelevance.
Kierkegaard rightly and insightfully reminds us that to seek pleasure and avoid pain is a quality we share with all sentient creatures. It is not a choice in reality to seek pleasure but rather a capitulation of choice. ?Choosing? the hedonistic life of an aesthete is not a choice, but an abstention of choice. This is profoundly consistent with Islam?s doctrine of freewill, a doctrine embedded in the Arabic language itself. ?To choose? in Arabic is ?akhtaara,? and ?choice? is ?ikhtiyaar.? The tri-radical source of the word is ?khayr,? which means ?good.? The verbal form ?ikhtaara? literally means ?to choose good for oneself.? Hence, from this perspective, choice is the act of choosing what is good.
Sayyid Naquib al-Attas, the contemporary Malay philosopher, persuasively connects the notion of choice to the idea of freedom
The choice that is meant in ikhtiyaar is the choice of what is good, better, or best between the two alternatives. This point is most important as it is aligned to the philosophical question of freedom. A choice of what is bad of two alternatives is therefore not a choice that can be called ikhtiyaar; in fact it is not a choice, rather it is an act of injustice done to oneself. Freedom is to act as one?s real and true nature demands?that is one?s haqq and one?s fitrah demands?and so only the exercise of that choice which is of what is good can properly be called a ?free choice.? A choice for the better is therefore an act of freedom, and it is also an act of justice done to oneself. It presupposes a knowledge of good and evil, of virtues and vices; whereas a choice for the worse is not a choice as it is grounded upon ignorance urged on by the instigation of the soul that inclines toward the blameworthy aspects of the animal powers; it is then also not an exercise of freedom because freedom means precisely being free of domination by the powers of the soul that incites to evil.
This enslavement to the inciting soul (nafs al-ammaarah) is entirely ignored in our public discussions about freedom. Moral freedom, the freedom to act prudently and virtuously, is dismissed in any discussion of freedom in the modern context of political and circumstantial freedom. Destructive moral dissolution, which was once rightly termed licentiousness, is now considered a type of freedom. According to the Qur?an, these destructive tendencies are a result of the dominance of the commanding self (nafs al-ammaarah), infantile and domineering, in its unrestrained state.
That ?unrestrained? submission to one?s appetites was seen by the 20th century American philosopher, Mortimer Adler, as a reversion to childlike behavior
To give vent to all the promptings of desire, without regard to the demands of society or reality is to revert to infancy?a state characterized, according to Freud, by ?the irreconcilability of its wishes with reality.? Because children ?live at the beck and call of appetite, and it is in them that the desire for what is pleasant is strongest,? Aristotle thinks it fitting that we should speak of self-indulgence when it occurs in an adult as a ?childish fault.?
Similarly, the 14th century Egyptian poet, Imam al-Busiri, in his section on the caprices of the soul, cautions against letting desire take charge of one?s self
Do not attempt to break its appetites through wanton indulgence
Notice how food only strengthens the glutton?s cravingThe self is like an infant ? if you leave it, it will grow up loving to suckle,
But if you wean it, soon it will lose its desire for the breast.Divert the self?s desires and avoid empowering it ?
Whenever desire takes charge, it either destroys or defiles.Shepherd over it as it grazes freely in the field of actions,
But should it find the pasturage sweet, restrain its casual roaming.How often it has found some deadly pleasure delightful
Not knowing that poison lies hidden in cream!Be on guard against its traps of hunger and satiety ?
An empty stomach can be worse than a full one.The wantonness and self-centered nature of the aesthete prevents him from any mature relationships; others are merely toys in his pursuit of infantile self-gratification and he is quite literally a ?playboy.? Kierkegaard wisely identified the aesthete as being on a continuum of pleasure -- from the crude plebian pleasures of the brutish class to the rarified genteel pursuits of the elite. In other words, whether it is Oprah or opera, the sundry indulgences of humanity find the matrix of their pursuits in the same loci?the center of the self and its desires.
Kierkegaard believed that each of us is confronted with a choice?an ?Either/Or? choice. It is either to renounce our freewill and to choose not to choose in our pursuit of pleasure, or to embrace our true self and pursue not pleasure but the ethical life of virtue, which is rooted in commitment to others. He wrote
What, then, is it that I separate in my Either/Or? Is it good and evil? No, I only want to bring you to the point where this choice truly has meaning for you. It is on this that everything turns. As soon as a person can be brought to stand at the crossroads in such a way that there is no way out for him except to choose, he will choose the right thing? Consequently, either a person has to live esthetically or he has to live ethically.
Profoundly important to this challenge is the understanding that in choosing the ethical life, one does not renounce pleasure. It simply becomes meaningful in ways unimaginable to the aesthete. Kierkegaard writes, ?I am no ethical rigorist, enthusiastic about a formal, abstract freedom. If only the choice is posited, all the esthetic returns, and you will see that only thereby does existence become beautiful and that this is the only way a person can save his soul and win the whole world, can use the world without misusing it.? The pleasure monger can only misuse the world because he takes as means other people who should be seen as ends unto themselves. He exploits them for his pleasure or participates in their exploitation by feeding the machine that is exploiting them. The ethical person, on the other hand, is transparent to himself and hence to others. Kierkegaard states, ?The person who lives ethically has seen himself, knows himself, penetrates his whole concretion with his consciousness, does not allow vague thoughts to rustle around inside him or let tempting possibilities distract him with their juggling; he is not like a magic picture that shifts from one thing to another, all depending on how one shifts and turns it.?He can now develop in his life ?the personal, the civic, the religious virtues, and his life advances through his continually translating himself from one stage to another.
-
Peace Taro Hiroshi, good research on your part, Allah sums it up in Quran
by guiding believers to do what is best. The Quran does not say lust is bad
but that inappropriate lust is bad. I think if men asked this question with
women as the "lusters" (is that even a word) the answer would come swiftly
and clearly.peace
-
@ Man, okay. None taken.
But please do not take this to offense when I say this. I feel a certain way towards you.
I cannot be certain whether you are just a troll (spreading confusion/controversial ideas) or confused/misinformed.
At first I leaned strongly to the first of the two, now I am leaning towards the latter. That perhaps your intentions are truly good, but your reasoning and sources are flawed. Although, I do not think that intentions alone are sufficient.Let me borrow for this time only a technique from Taro and cite something.
I once heard
"Careless effort can be harmful"Have you considered whether it might be you who are misinformed? I would cease my arrogance if I were you.
I am definitely not a troll. I am here to help people.
Be safe
Amenuel -
I'm glad that you see him that way now. I think Hiroshi is a beautiful soul, and I think that he is among of good men who are very rare these days.
Btw, I like your current avatar @ HP_TECH! Nice quote and rightly put, imo.
Peace.
I am a good man, JavaLatte. You just cannot perceive this.
Be safe
Amenuel -
What I say makes sense HP_TECH.
-
What I say makes sense HP_TECH.
Okay so maybe you are genuine but that doesn't mean you are well informed. In fact most of your central theories are in contradiction to the evidence in the Quran and have indicate that to you in another post. Please do read the verses I linked on the post. I mean well for everyone including you.
I don't think I am misinformed in believing the Quran has all the answers and in upholding truth and dismissing falsehood.
I don't think I am being arrogant by questioning your intentions when you propagate reincarnation, and all these other bizarre theories of yours which have no foundation in the Quran.
If you felt arrogance then it is your reaction towards me pointing you to the Light.PS I don't think JAVA said anything personal about you not being a good man...she mentioned him because he is relevant to the issue as I misjudged his character.
-
Okay so maybe you are genuine but that doesn't mean you are well informed. In fact most of your central theories are in contradiction to the evidence in the Quran and have indicate that to you in another post. Please do read the verses I linked on the post. I mean well for everyone including you.
I don't think I am misinformed in believing the Quran has all the answers and in upholding truth and dismissing falsehood.
I don't think I am being arrogant by questioning your intentions when you propagate reincarnation, and all these other bizarre theories of yours which have no foundation in the Quran.
If you felt arrogance then it is your reaction towards me pointing you to the Light.PS I don't think JAVA said anything personal about you not being a good man...she mentioned him because he is relevant to the issue as I misjudged his character.
Hey HP_TECH, why do you think reincarnation is contrary to the Quran? I don't agree with MoF on many crucial things (he is contradicting himself in this above post again! on the subject he knows I talked to him about) but reincarnation is not one of those things (I am still contemplating on it though, but it makes much sense).
Selam. -
Peace mmmm and everyone,
Although I think that the topic/subject of reincarnation is an interesting topic/subject, it's off-topic. No offense intended, but this thread is about the topic/subject of lust, not reincarnation. If you and other members want to discuss the topic/subject of reincarnation, I suggest creating a new thread or discussing it in another thread. Let's keep this thread on topic.
By the way, perhaps you can share your thoughts and views/opinions on the topic/subject of this thread. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts and views/opinions. I'd also be interested to hear the thoughts and views/opinions of other members in FM. I believe that we can all learn from each other. Personally, I've learned new things since I've started this thread.
If anyone knows of any good articles and/or books about the topic/subject of lust, please share them in this thread.
By the way, I'd like to share an article with you all.
Desire, Lust, Chastity, and Love A Deeper Understanding
http//www.lifeissues.net/writers/may/may_56understanding.html