Home > Topic > Intercourse

Intercourse  QUOTES

43 " I would clarify regarding these verses as God mentioned in some Swras. In Swra of Al-Nisaa verse 15 says { And those who come to the obscene of your wives, testify four witnesses among you{believers in God}, if they testified keep them in the house till death or the God make a path for them
In the Swra Al-Israa verse 32 God says {Do not get close to fornication it is an obscene and a bad path}
In the Swra Al-noor verse 2 God says {The adulterers female and male whip each of them a hundred whips and do not mercy them in the religion of God if you are believers in God and the end day let some believers to testify their punishment {2} the male adulterer only comet sexual intercourse with female adulterer or polytheists and the female adulterer only comet sexual intercourse with male adulterer or polytheists and that prohibited for believers{3} and those who accuse chaste woman and do not provide four witnesses whip them eighty whips and do not accept their testimony ever and those are the defiantly disobedient{4} only those who repent after that and reformed God is forgiven and merciful{5} And those who accuse their wives and do not have any witnesses their testifying will be four testimonies by God as he is honest{6} And the fifth {oath and testimony by God} a curse of God on him if he was not honest(7) And the punishment will not occur on her if she gives four testimonies by God that the man is a liar(8) And the fifth (fifth time giving testimony by God) the anger of God will be on her if he was an honest . Dear brothers and sisters in the God’s regulation there is not the punishment by stoning till death {hitting by stone} the punishment for married or unmarried is one hundred lashes although a group of believers in God have to be present and witness their punishment. The clarification has been made by Kamaran Ihsan Salih on 11/07/2017 "

Kamaran Ihsan Salih

53 " I do not know which impulse was stronger in me when I began to think: the original thirst for knowledge or the urge to communicate with man. Knowledge attains its full meaning only through the bond that unites men; however, the urge to achieve agreement with another human being was so hard to satisfy. I was shocked by the lack of understanding, paralyzed, as it were, by every reconciliation in which what had gone before was not fully cleared up. Early in my life and then later again and again I was perplexed by people’s rigid inaccessibility and their failure to listen to reasons, their disregard of facts, their indifference which prohibited discussion, their defensive attitude which kept you at a distance and at the decisive moment buried any possibility of a close approach, and finally their shamelessness, that bares its own soul without reserve, as though no one were present. When ready assent occurred I remained unsatisfied, because it was not based on true insight but on yielding to persuasion; because it was the consequence of friendly cooperation, not a meeting of two selves. True, I knew the glory of friendship (in common studies, in the cordial atmosphere of home or countryside). But then came the moments of strangeness, as if human beings lived in different worlds. Steadily the consciousness of loneliness grew upon me in my youth, yet nothing seemed more pernicious to me than loneliness, especially the loneliness in the midst of social intercourse that deceives itself in a multitude of friendships. No urge seemed stronger to me than that for communication with others. If the never-completed movement of communication succeeds with but a single human being, everything is achieved. It is a criterion of this success that there be a readiness to communicate with every human being encountered and that grief is felt whenever communication fails. Not merely an exchange of words, nor friendliness and sociability, but only the constant urge towards total revelation reaches the path of communication. "

Karl Jaspers

59 " Close friendships, Gandhi says, are dangerous, because “friends react on one another” and through loyalty to a friend one can be led into wrong-doing. This is unquestionably true. Moreover, if one is to love God, or to love humanity as a whole, one cannot give one's preference to any individual person. This again is true, and it marks the point at which the humanistic and the religious attitude cease to be reconcilable. To an ordinary human being, love means nothing if it does not mean loving some people more than others. The autobiography leaves it uncertain whether Gandhi behaved in an inconsiderate way to his wife and children, but at any rate it makes clear that on three occasions he was willing to let his wife or a child die rather than administer the animal food prescribed by the doctor. It is true that the threatened death never actually occurred, and also that Gandhi — with, one gathers, a good deal of moral pressure in the opposite direction — always gave the patient the choice of staying alive at the price of committing a sin: still, if the decision had been solely his own, he would have forbidden the animal food, whatever the risks might be. There must, he says, be some limit to what we will do in order to remain alive, and the limit is well on this side of chicken broth. This attitude is perhaps a noble one, but, in the sense which — I think — most people would give to the word, it is inhuman. The essence of being human is that one does not seek perfection, that one is sometimes willing to commit sins for the sake of loyalty, that one does not push asceticism to the point where it makes friendly intercourse impossible, and that one is prepared in the end to be defeated and broken up by life, which is the inevitable price of fastening one's love upon other human individuals. No doubt alcohol, tobacco, and so forth, are things that a saint must avoid, but sainthood is also a thing that human beings must avoid. There is an obvious retort to this, but one should be wary about making it. In this yogi-ridden age, it is too readily assumed that “non-attachment” is not only better than a full acceptance of earthly life, but that the ordinary man only rejects it because it is too difficult: in other words, that the average human being is a failed saint. It is doubtful whether this is true. Many people genuinely do not wish to be saints, and it is probable that some who achieve or aspire to sainthood have never felt much temptation to be human beings. If one could follow it to its psychological roots, one would, I believe, find that the main motive for “non-attachment” is a desire to escape from the pain of living, and above all from love, which, sexual or non-sexual, is hard work. But it is not necessary here to argue whether the other-worldly or the humanistic ideal is “higher”. The point is that they are incompatible. One must choose between God and Man, and all “radicals” and “progressives”, from the mildest Liberal to the most extreme Anarchist, have in effect chosen Man. "

George Orwell