Looking at another human being is forbidden? I doubt it, seems to be more a case of "looking lustfully", the lustfully bit being the operative, and why it is thought crime. The looking doesn't make it sinful, the lust does. Do you feel some personal aversion to thought crime?

(March 19, 2013 at 8:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Looking at another human being is forbidden? I doubt it, seems to be more a case of "looking lustfully", the lustfully bit being the operative, and why it is thought crime. The looking doesn't make it sinful, the lust does. Do you feel some personal aversion to thought crime?

No, The sin is in the looking, not in the thinking. i could find a woman ugly in the streets but it is still forbidden for me to look at her unnecessarily, it is not permitted for me to look at her without a valid reason.

---

(March 19, 2013 at 8:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Do you feel some personal aversion to thought crime?

No, I don't. But it doesn't exist in Islam. We can neither be punished nor rewarded for our thoughts.

We're talking about another man. Nevertheless, the notion of "unneccessarrily looking" at a women is again tied to the roots of thoughtcrime, and it's pretty transparent. Unneccessary for what, and what constitutes unneccessary, and again it isn't the looking, its okay to look at people, is it not? It's clearly the implication or assumption of whatever else may be occurring, overtly or covertly. I suppose it's a good thing that you don't have any aversion toward thought crimes, it's starting to look like you'd have a rough time with your brand of islam if you did.

I can see that you'll continue to assert that thought crime doesn't exist in islam while simultaneously describing precisely how it does. Perhaps addressing the second example will more easily explain the principle to you. The blasphemer who keeps his blasphemy to himself. The man who thinks that there is no allah, and that mo either didn't exist or was a con. Is this sinful?

(March 19, 2013 at 8:25 pm)Rhythm Wrote: We're talking about another man. Nevertheless, the notion of "unneccessarrily looking" at a women is again tied to the roots of thoughtcrime, and it's pretty transparent. Unneccessary for what, and what constitutes unneccessary, and again it isn't the looking, its okay to look at people, is it not? It's clearly the implication or assumption of whatever else may be occurring, overtly or covertly. I suppose it's a good thing that you don't have any aversion toward thought crimes, it's starting to look like you'd have a rough time with your version of islam if you did.

The thing is, my "version" of Islam is literalist and scriptural (which the vast majority of 1.6 billions Muslims also agree with) , something that you don't seem to be able to grasp. That means my answers are rooted in tangible text, not in a logical argument or mythical analogies. This is cold hard texts we're talking about. Something which can be read.

I can read Bram Stokers Dracula as well. Many people have read the same narrative. What that says about the accuracy of the narrative or it's authority on the subject of vampires is a mystery. It's not difficult for me to grasp that you seem to believe that your interpretation and the agreement of others means something, but whether or not I can grasp or understand why you think this is the case doesn't actually have anything to do with whether or not it -is- the case.

But back to my questions about islam, if you don't mind.

(March 19, 2013 at 8:25 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I can see that you'll continue to assert that thought crime doesn't exist in islam while simultaneously describing precisely how it does. Perhaps addressing the second example will more easily explain the principle to you. The blasphemer who keeps his blasphemy to himself. The man who thinks that there is no allah, and that mo either didn't exist or was a con. Is this sinful?

You got it spot on. I think my explanation was insufficient, I do apologise about that. I don't have time to fully explain the following but I was under the impression that we were discussing the laws of Islam, which is completely distinct from the actual theology of the religion. There IS thought-crime in theology, there IS NO though crime on matters pertaining to law. To make matters even more confusing, we don't call it a "sin" generally speaking, we say "disbelief" in Arabic this would be "kufr", which is on a different level to simply sinning. It is basically a sin that is on a different level, not a conventional one.

Good to see we're finally rolling along again. So now that we've established that your islam contains thought crime, and that this doesn't bother you, I'd ask the question of whether or not those thought crimes will carry with them a punitive sentence? Or, perhaps you prefer the notion that only allah knows what will carry such a sentence?

It is literally impossible to punish thought-crime, how on God's green earth can anyone do that? If a person blasphemes publicly, then yes, it is possible to take action, but just thinking about it will definitely go unnoticed lol

(March 19, 2013 at 8:31 pm)mo66 Wrote: The thing is, my "version" of Islam is literalist and scriptural (which the vast majority of 1.6 billions Muslims also agree with) , something that you don't seem to be able to grasp. That means my answers are rooted in tangible text, not in a logical argument or mythical analogies. This is cold hard texts we're talking about. Something which can be read.

And be completely disbelieved.

(March 19, 2013 at 8:44 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote:

(March 19, 2013 at 8:31 pm)mo66 Wrote: The thing is, my "version" of Islam is literalist and scriptural (which the vast majority of 1.6 billions Muslims also agree with) , something that you don't seem to be able to grasp. That means my answers are rooted in tangible text, not in a logical argument or mythical analogies. This is cold hard texts we're talking about. Something which can be read.

And be completely disbelieved.

Congratulations for stringing a sentence together.