Messages

1741

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Meaning of 'Nur' from the Quran

« on: November 14, 2011, 01:54:39 PM »

Salamun Alaikum,

You are absolutely correct in that two descriptions both of which carry an 'inherent' meaning of light are used to describe two separate celestial bodies and should not be ignored for proper intellectual enquiry. However, I am not sure whether that translates exclusively into a 'source - reflection' relationship as I'm sure you will agree. The word 'Nur' could easily have a wider encompassing meaning even whilst being mentioned along with the sun's description. But of course, not being exclusive doesn't mean that a possibility does not exist. I do accept that. However, the Quran is primarily being spoken in the language of its recipients (7th century Arabs) so that they understand clearly what is being said. As simply a hypothetical, maybe the moon was considered a 'light that guides' in the depths of the night land in ancient Arabia which is not so incongruent with its inherent meanings as used by the Quran. Moonlight aside, even the momentary lightening flash has been described as giving some sort of small window of opportunity by the flash it provides so that they could continue walking (2:20). I can only imagine what the moon would provide in terms of its illumination.

I hope that helps,

Joseph.

1742

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Meaning of 'Nur' from the Quran

« on: November 14, 2011, 01:46:17 PM »

Walaikum salaam,

I hope my following article helps in some small way, God willing.

http://quransmessage.com/articles/nur%20FM3.htm

Your brother,
Joseph.

1743

Discussions / Re: Thought of an Institution Based on True Scholarship for the Masses

« on: November 14, 2011, 12:28:34 PM »

Dear Reader,

Salamun Alaikum.

Thank you for your recommendations and comments. They are truly appreciated.

With regards Islamic secondary soures, I feel that my position is actually more nuanced then you may seem to be inferring. Much of my own study has been focused with Islamic secondary sources and no doubt it is in important area to scrutinise and appreciate.

I have even captured these sentiments in my writings.

I write in the following article:  http://quransmessage.com/articles/hadith%20FM2.htm

"Both the Sunna (practice) and the Ahadith along with all other Islamic secondary sources must only be understood and appreciated in the light of the Quran and not vice versa. The Quran must remain the first principle, the ultimate filtering point, the supreme authority and the final judge between what is right and what is wrong.  It is the ultimate source of interpretation, guidance and the perfect criterion. Anything which runs contrary to the teachings of the Quran, its own theology or wisdom must be instantly rejected.
 
However, it is also unreasonable to suggest complete corruption of the Islamic secondary sources. Classical scholars should be fully appreciated in the endeavours they have made to pass on their efforts to succeeding generations of Muslims. However, it is also a mistake to consider them as 'authorities' in such a way that their works become the source of guidance themselves and beyond reproach. Classical or modern works should always be understood, appreciated and critically evaluated  in the light of the Quran."

I also quote the sentiments of another scholar who I feel resonates my own views on the Ahadith corpus:

"It would, therefore, be improper to ignore or underestimate the significance of the Ahadith literature as a historical source even if its authenticity may appeal doubtful. The modern Occidentalists are of the opinion that in spite of the fact that Apocrypha are of doubtful authenticity, we can still peep through them into the social life and behaviour of their fabricators, hence their significance as a source of history should not be denied. Similarly, even such portions of the hadith material as have been declared fake, unauthentic and of doubtful nature, contain most valuable hints regarding one or the other aspect of the early Islamic society"    [1]
 
Many Ahadith reports, irrespective of their authenticity contain wisdom, exquisite narratives and in keeping with the teachings of the Quran. However, their agreeable content does amount to prima facie evidence, that they were actually said by the Prophet.

However the focal consideration for me is not the question of authenticity of the Islamic Secondary Source literature. In my humble opinion, the question of 'authenticity' of the Ahadith corpus is relatively mute from a Quran's perspective. Rather, a more pertinent question for me is the question of 'authority'. Does the Quran recognise any other authoritative source except for itself as Divinely ordained 'religion'? I find that no one has cogently ever proven this to be the case.

From my own ardent research, I find the Quran gives absolutely no such authority to any other source. The Quran stands alone for sole 'religious' guidance as ordained by God.

006.114
"Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than God? - when He it is Who has revealed to you the Book, explained in detail (Arabic: Mufassalan)". They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it has been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt"

045:006          
"These are verses of God (Arabic: ayat-ullah) that We recite to you with truth. Then, in what HADITH (Arabic word: Hadithin) after God and His verses (Arabic: Ayati) do they believe?"

I hope that this helps clarify my position with the Islamic secondary sources.

Your brother,
Joseph.

REFERENCES
[1] SINGH. N.K, Encyclopaedia Historiography of the Muslim World, Global Vision Publishing House, First Edition 2003, Page 319

1744

Islamic Duties / Re: Salaat = Follow the Quran

« on: November 14, 2011, 10:10:36 AM »

Thanks Saba 

1745

Discussions / Academic Dishonesty and Misrepresentation

« on: November 13, 2011, 02:37:17 PM »

Please see the link below:

http://quransmessage.com/expose/main.htm

1746

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Women Praying with Men

« on: November 13, 2011, 12:07:29 PM »

Salamun Alaikum,

In my opinion and purely based on verse 3:43 that you have cited, one cannot conclude whether this means pray separately with others in the same place of worship or intermingled with men. The verse simply speaks about devotion and then to bow with those that bow. All that can be implied is a congregational prayer of both genders at best (not necessarily intermingled).

Yes, I agree, women should be allowed to pray in the same mosques with men. However, gender separation can still be maintained despite prayer being performed in the same prayer hall. I know of many women that would feel uncomfortable praying along with unknown men and vice versa. I don't think that one has to prove a point by intermingling both sexes as I'm sure you will agree. I think there are many Mosques in which men and women participate in the same prayer congregation under one prayer leader and in the same prayer hall. Also in the Holy sanctuary of Ka'aba men and women are often seen praying together. (Possibly due to practical logistics given the multitudes of people as opposed to choice).

To say Friday prayer is only required for men is not supported by the Quran. The Quran clearly addresses 'Ya-ayyuh-alladhina amanu' (O ye who believe) with regards to a Friday congregational prayer in verse 62:9 which includes both men and women. There is no support from the Quran to limit prayers in Friday congregations to men alone.

I hope that helps.

Joseph.

1747

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Are Prawns Halal?

« on: November 13, 2011, 07:51:06 AM »

Walaikum salaam,

All sea food has been made lawful to eat. Note the word 'Bahr' denotes any large accumulation of water, whether derived from seas, rivers, lakes or ponds. The pronoun in 'ta'amuhu' (literally it's food) relates to the word Bahr and this indicates all manner of seafood.
 
005.096
"Lawful (Arabic: uhilla) to you is the pursuit of game (Arabic: saydu) of the sea (Arabic: bahri) and its use for food (Arabic: ta'amuhu), for the benefit of yourselves and those who travel; but forbidden is the pursuit of game of the land as long as you are in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb. And fear God, to Whom you shall be gathered back"

I think you refer to verse 2:168, 'O ye people! Eat of what is on earth, Lawful (halalan) and good (tayyiban)'
 
The word used is 'tayyiban' (good) but it also says 'halal' (lawful). The Quran states categorically in the Quran what is 'halal' and what isn't. The word is 'fil-ard' (in the earth) which is a general statement for the earth, sea and everything found within it. I don't think this verse can be extended to scampi's etc.

Prawns, scampi's etc are a catch of the sea, therefore they are halal to eat in my personal opinion based on the Quran.

I hope this helps,

Joseph.

1748

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: 'Blood Poured Forth' and 6:145

« on: November 13, 2011, 07:45:58 AM »

Peace,

I, like yourself agree that the elaboration of adjective 'masfuhan' (poured forth) with daman (blood) is a blessing otherwise it could indeed be argued that blood in whatever form or existence would be forbidden. If we note the verse carefully, it seems as some may have asked this very question about 'blood'. Hence, this verse appears as a clarification verse. Please note the style. 'Say, I find not in that which is revealed unto me anything prohibited...' Some sort of clarification it appears has been sought, hence the style of the response by the Prophet. 

6:145 definitely seems to elaborate the context of the blood to mean 'running blood' or 'blood for consumption'. This is in keeping with the style of the Quran Which often elaborates meanings in other parts of the Quran.

Regards,
Joseph.

1749

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Is Pig Fat Forbidden or Just Swine Flesh?

« on: November 13, 2011, 07:41:39 AM »

Peace,

The only reason in my mind why the fat of animals has been singled out for Jews is because they had very stringent rules of what they could and could not eat. See verse 6:146 of the Quran and the Old Testament. That is why the Quran uses the distinguishing terms.

Please note that if the same logic is applied, the reverse argument is just as sound. For example, it can be argued that by the using the term 'khanzeer', the Quran has forbidden the whole animal, as if the Quran wanted to allow other parts such as 'fats' (shuhumahuma), their entrails (hawaya) etc, the Quran could have mentioned it, especially when it was forbidden before and mentioned in the Quran. But as the Quran didn't mention it, hence, the whole animal is intended in the prohibition.

I hope you can see that the reverse argument is also just as cogent if the same logic is applied. It arguably seems more plausible.

The reason I feel the 'lahmu' (flesh) of 'khinzir' (swine) has been used is that given the context, the verse is talking about 'eating' and mentioning the 'flesh' of the prohibited animal is in keeping with the flow of the verse and Arabic.  If you one consults verse 56:21, where the flesh (lahmi) of fowls will be given to those in paradise as a similitude of that of on Earth, would this exclude the insides? Or is the 'lahmu' a representation of the whole animal?

'and the flesh (lahmi) of fowls of they desire' (56:21)

If here the whole fowl is intended (including the fat), then why would 'lahmu' with regards to khanzir (swine) not be considered as a representation of the whole animal?

I hope this helps, God willing.

Joseph.

1750

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Did Prophet Receive Revelations Outside the Quran?

« on: November 13, 2011, 07:32:50 AM »

Salamun Alaikum,

The verse you refer to with regards the Prophet's wives divulging something is Surah Tahrim and verse number 3. (66:3). You are absolutely correct in my humble opinion when you say 'I can think of some examples where We may be informed of something, but maybe not from the Source direct'. This brother is your 'wisdom'. What gave you the wisdom to understand the wisdom of what that verse means?

So I feel you are absolutely correct in my humble opinion.

To claim that this silence in the Quran means that the Prophet was taught something else vital for mankind's guidance which was not included in the scripture is a violation of so many other verses which claim that the only revelation to the Prophet for mankind's guidance was the Quran which was complete for its intended purpose.

006:114
"Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than God? - when He is the One who has sent to you the Book, explained in detail (Arabic: Mufassalan)." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it has been sent down from your Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt"

045:006                
"These are verses of God (Arabic: ayat-ullah) that We recite to you with truth. Then, in what HADITH (Arabic word: Hadithin) after God and His verses (Arabic: Ayati) do they believe?"

There are many forms of 'inspiration' (wahi) which include those in which circumstances reveal the truth of a matter or a suggestion to action something. For example, Prophet Moses's mother who was not a Prophet was 'inspired' to put her babe into the river (28:7), or the bees who are 'inspired' to choose habitations in the hills and in the trees in which they can build (16:68).

010.109
'And (O Muhammad) follow that which is inspired in you, and forbear until God give judgment. And He is the Best of Judge'

And what is inspired in the Prophet for mankind's guidance? The following verse elaborates.

006:019 (Part)
'Say: "What thing is most weighty in evidence?" Say: "God is witness between me and you: THIS QURAN HAS BEEN REVEALED TO ME BY INSPIRATION, that I may warn you and all whom it reaches'¦.'


PROPHET WAS TOLD ONLY TO WARN WITH THE QURAN

050:045
'We know best what they say; and you are not one to overawe them by force. So admonish with the Quran such as fear My Warning!'

Furthermore, it is a valid question to ask why it was deemed necessary to inform mankind via scripture that the Prophet had forbidden something that he should not have done to please his wives in 66:1? Is not the wisdom here that not everything the prophet says or does is 'revelation'? This seriously challenges the oft cited traditional Muslim claim that whatever the Prophet spoke was revelation. Clearly in this verse the Prophet made something forbidden for which he had received no warrant from his lord.

The only thing that is protected by God is the Quran. We have not been informed of the protection of anything else.

015:009
'Surely We have revealed the reminder (Arabic: Dhikr) and We will most surely be its guardian (Arabic: Hafizun)'

I hope this helps.

Kind regards,
Joseph

1751

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: The Prophet was sent to 'Teach'. Is this not Hadith?

« on: November 13, 2011, 07:22:33 AM »

Peace brother ...

'Teach' is a very broad term which, as you know, can mean to impart knowledge, to explain something and to basically give 'ilm'. Of course, the verses had to be taught by a Prophet, knowledge which was given to him by God (75:16-18). He made use of wisdom by upholding the Quranic verses and applying them in his present context with a view to address his specific societal requirements. This wisdom was only taught by God.  But to say that these 'teachings' have been faithfully preserved in the works of men, centuries removed from source, mouth to mouth is a completely different matter.

Yes, you are absolutely correct that it is God that teaches. He taught the Prophet wisdom (hikmah) from the same Book that you have in your hands today. God can teach wisdom via that same Book today, if He so wills, to whomsoever He pleases.

In verse 3:79, God tells us what Prophets of God would have told their followers to teach. This is not a reference to extra books or anything written by man centuries later. The verse clearly answers the question and informs one that the only thing a Prophet will ask you to teach is scripture. Of course, wisdom can only be extracted from those verses. Many Hadith reports have nothing to do with the 'wisdom' from the Quran.

003:079
"It is not (possible) for any human being to whom God had given the Scripture and wisdom and the prophethood that he should afterwards have said to mankind: Be slaves of me instead of God; but (what he said was): Be worshippers of the Lord by virtue of your constant teaching (Arabic: tu'allimuna) of the Scripture and of your constant study of it"


With regards whether Wisdom is Sunnah, I hope you find the following article to answer your question 

http://quransmessage.com/articles/hikmah%20FM3.htm

I hope this helps.

Kind regards,
Joseph

1752

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Are Christians, Jews, Sikhs and Hindu's Required to Follow the Quran?

« on: November 13, 2011, 07:11:33 AM »

Peace to you.
 
I have given you a brief response and also attached a more elucidated response which may be relevant to your query.
 
BRIEF:
 
(1) There is no compulsion to follow the Quran. This is an individual choice dependant on whether the veracity of the message is accepted. Each person will be judged in accordance to what level of truth reached them. People of the Book are asked to accept the Quran as 'truth' and not to  automatically reject it. They are also not asked to abandon their laws.
 
(2) The Quran recognises other monotheists and to each salvation is open. See 2:62 and 5:69
 
(3) The Quran refers to a number of nations / communities by name and alludes to numerous communities without naming them. Any one of them could be a reference to communities which later became known as 'Hindu's. To all nations it is claimed that warners were sent and will continue to be sent (10:47; 13:7; 39:71). There are also many messengers and prophets that were sent but are not named by the Quran (22:52; 40:78; 4:164). Some scriptures have been alluded to (Such as the Suhuf of Abraham 87:19) but this does by no mean imply a comprehensive list. However, the Quran remains the final revealed scripture as sealed by the final Prophethood (33:40). So the understanding that other communities had scripture bearing Prophets before Prophet Muhammad is not necessarily denied. Whether these communities accepted their warners or subsequent warners is quite a different matter.
 
ELABORATION:
 
The best way to understand this is to imagine mankind on a long string. On the one hand there is falsehood and on the other there is absolute truth. We are all somewhere on this long string. We all have some sort of belief system. Even complete disbelief is a 'belief that there is no God'.  We all have practices we follow whether they are inherited as part of societal norms or whether they have a religious base. So on this long string there exists numerous 'systems' or 'deens'.
 
The Quran refers to different 'systems' or as the Quran calls 'deen'. For example in 12:76, we note the Egyptian King's 'Deen' in which Joseph could not take his brother by the king's 'law' (Note the Arabic term - Deen).  Pharaoh had a 'deen' (40:26) and was worried that Prophet Moses would change their religion (yubaddila dinakum).  The Quraish had their own 'deen' and even the people of the Book have been known to split up their 'deen' into sects (6:159) (farraqu dinahum wakanu shiya'an).
 
The Quran claims that not all roads lead straight (16:9), and the purpose of the Quran is to guide mankind to the path which is 'straight' and towards the part of the 'string' which denotes absolute truth. We are reminded to pray that we are led to a part which is closest to this truth (18:24).
 
Islam was a system of beliefs and monotheistic practices that were revealed to all Prophets of God (42:13) and the Quran's guidance is not necessarily there to eradicate all forms of cultural practices and systems but to only remove the practices and beliefs that are 'incongruent' with Islam. For example we note that the Quraish were already familiar with a practice with regards  Safa and Marwa in 2:158. (Note the Quran does not refer to them as mountains nor connects it with any Abrahamic story). They are simply referred to as 'symbols' (sha'airi). Note the language of the verse. It is not reinstating a practice nor is it prescribing a practice. It is simply allowing a cultural practice that was already in place to continue as optional.
 
In this way, practices and beliefs of the Quraish which were incongruent with Islam were removed (For example: Intercession, multiple deities, lack of belief in the last day or even superstitions (Camel ear slit 5:103 etc)) and others consistent with monotheistic faith were retained. In this way, the  'deen' of the Quraish was 'cleaned' and 'perfected' so in effect, it was brought back in line with 'Islam'. It was not Islam that was perfected (as commonly thought) as Islam was always perfect, but the 'deen' of the Quraish was 'perfected' and Islam was reinstituted (5:3)
 
Now the Quran distinguishes between 'Ahl-e-Kitab' (People of the Book - Jews and Christians) and other 'deens'. The Quran does not refer to the people of the book as people of 'different' deens. The Quran even recognises plurality and recognises that the people of the book will follow a different 'Shariah'. Note verse 5:48, 'we prescribed a law and an open way' (ja'alna minkum shir'atan wa min'hajan). However the Quran does ask for the People of the Book to believe in the 'veracity' of the Quran and not to dismiss it as false. Note that there are 'believers' from the People of the Book.
 
003.199
"And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book (Arabic: Ahli-l-kitabi), those who believe in God, in the revelation to you, and in the revelation to them, bowing in humility to God: They will not sell the Signs of God for a miserable gain! For them is a reward with their Lord, and God is swift in account"
 
The Quran also offers itself as a criterion and judge where they may be dispute (5:49). In particular, the Quran admonishes transgressions in 'deen' for example with regards Christians and the concept of 'thalathatun' (three) (4:171) and the concept of Son of God or attributing partners to Him. So again, the Quran attempts to 'clean up' transgressions in the deen of the People of the Book and not necessarily to abandon their laws.
 
There is often a tendency to over simplify the concept of 'One God'. In numerous debates, I have often intimated that the Quran does demand that one conceives the 'correct' understanding of the ONE God as one who is free of partners, Unseen, Intangible, Omnipotent, Transcendent, who is All Powerful, Merciful and All Just. He is the creator of the Heavens and the Earth and to whom all things will return for judgement. From a Quran's perspective It is simply not enough to say that one believes in ONE God, but then to think of him having intercessors, partners or having no recourse to  judgment. The latter point is just as imperative as belief in the 'last day' and ultimate judgement is a prerequisite for true monotheistic belief. Many religions have a confused concept of the last day (Yaum-ul-Qiyama).
 
However, the Quran also makes it clear that no soul will be burdened beyond what they can bear and one is only responsible for the amount of 'truth' that has reached them. If the 'truth' of the Quran has not reached one, then it is understandable that their limited answerability will follow suit. It is quite another matter if the Quran's message has been understood fully an inwardly accepted, but then denied.
 
There is no compulsion in religion nor into following the Quran. Aspects of truth can be discerned without scripture. Remember, Abraham did not need a scripture to realise that there was only ONE God and to reject other forms of beliefs. He simply did this by pondering over the heavenly celestial bodies (6:75-79).
 
The Quran claims to be clear guidance which leads to the truth. If this truth has reached one with complete clarity and is then rejected, then that is a matter for God to decide. Today's Muslims have as much reason to 'clean' up their 'deen' as do other monotheists as do Hindu's or Sikhs. It is a responsibility for all of us to search for the truth and not confuse our beliefs (6:82). The Quran claims to be that truth and a revelation from God. We all (regardless of being Muslims, Hindu's or Sikhs) have a responsibility to assess that claim and if accepted, to clean up our particular 'system' (deen) in accordance with it. With regards People of the Book however, the Quran  mainly addresses their 'transgressions' in 'deen'. 
 
This also does not imply that all Hindu's and Sikh's are automatically 'Kaffir' (disbelievers) nor have access to God's mercy. This is a matter only for God to decide. Remember Kufr from the Quran's point of view is only reached once the truth has been fully manifested to a person given their  faculties, understood but then rejected.
 
Also the Quran does not label deens, it only addresses beliefs and practices in a form of a discourse to mankind from God. There may be a Jewish brother that follows a true monotheistic line of faith as opposed to a brother that claims to be a 'Muslim' but then adds confused concepts to his beliefs and practices.
 
Some related articles which may help further:
 
What is the true definition of 'Deen' from a Quran's perspective
http://quransmessage.com/articles/what%20is%20the%20true%20defintion%20of%20deen%20FM3.htm
 
Are some 'Muslims' of today any different from the Quraish (Mushrikeen) of old?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/are%20the%20muslims%20of%20today%20any%20different%20from%20the%20quraish%20of%20old%20FM3.htm
 
Understanding 'Kufr' (Disbelief) from a Quranic perspective
http://quransmessage.com/articles/understanding%20kufr%20FM3.htm

People of the Book (Jews and Christians)
http://quransmessage.com/articles/people%20of%20the%20book%20FM3.htm
 
 
I hope this helps.
 
Kind regards,
Joseph.

1753

General Discussions / Re: Shariah

« on: November 13, 2011, 06:50:32 AM »

Salamun Alaikum Sardar Miyan,

Welcome to the forum.

I would not like to perceive of a Khilafa state based on a traditional understanding of 'Islamic shariah' based on Islamic secondary sources as many Muslims understand today. The Quran on the other hand has sadly (and to their peril) been left shackled in many areas. And of course, whose shariah? Which sect? whose madhab?. I could go on as I'm sure you could too.

I think what is needed first is to get the true message of the Quran back into the hearts of people, on a platform where it starts making a difference to the masses and where its message is properly understood. This would no doubt require a multifaceted Herculean effort, but all great changes start from somewhere, with a desire and with small steps in the right direction.

I sometimes look at Western states, their welfare system, facilities for the weak, the blind, housing for the poor, the needy, roads, networks, emergency systems, health systems, justice systems, human rights, employment laws and wonder whether they have adopted many of the principles of the Quran. Yet, Muslim countries that claim to uphold the teachings of Islam and have the scripture with them, cannot provide basic necessities for their people.

Indeed, living as a citizen under a particular state must be respected (as long as it doesn't contravene basic religious edicts). We must respect the law of the land. We note an example of Prophet Joseph (pbuh) who upheld the king's law (system / deen) and did not break it even when presented with a complex situation which required manifestation of truth.

012:076
" Then he (Joseph) began the search with their bags before his brother's bag, then he produced it from his brother's bag. Thus did We contrive for Joseph. He could not have taken his brother according to the king's law (Arabic: Deen) unless God willed"

Quite ironically, I have found Western states fulfilling basic human rights, religious freedom, religious tolerance, anti discrimination and edicts congruent with Islam as opposed to many Muslim countries. Sadly, the Quran and its true message has been left abandoned (Mahjur).

025:030               
"And the messenger will say: O my Lord! Indeed! my own people / community (Arabic: Qawm)  took this Quran as a forsaken thing / ignored it / abandoned it (Arabic: Mahjura)"

Your brother,
Joseph.

1754

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Committing Suicide

« on: November 13, 2011, 06:24:01 AM »

Wa alaikum assalam

I don't think suicide and the verses appealing to the fact that no soul will be tested beyond what they can bear are necessarily mutually exclusive. If I have the capacity to endure something, but decide not to for some reason, it is a judgment based on volition not capacity. God knows well one's capacity. But we also exercise choice. In all cases, only God can judge.

However it is also noteworthy, that albeit most refer to verse 4:29 for the prohibition of suicide, the parameters of this verse in the next verse - 4:30 is usually not cited which provides the remit of the prohibition. This is 'aggression / enmity / rancour / transgression' - Arabic: 'udwan' and 'injustice / wrongdoing' - Arabic: 'zulm'.

Killing / suicide committed for these reasons will be subject to the hell-fire.

004:030
"And whoever does that in aggression / enmity / transgression (udwan) and unjustly / wrongdoing (zulm), We will soon cast him into fire; and this is easy for God"

This also arguably, supports the usage of the term 'anfusakum - yourselves' (plural) in verse 4:29 which in the theme of the verse is not only a reference to killing oneself, but also killing others whether singularly or as groups.

I hope that helps, God willing
Joseph

1755

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Please Help me Understand Verse 5:54 correctly

« on: November 13, 2011, 06:18:00 AM »

Peace brother ...

In my humble opinion, 'proud' is probably the least likely understanding I get from the Arabic text. Yes, any good translator like the ones you have listed below including our brother Edip tries to capture the best meaning of the word given the context of the narrative.

I personally incline to read the adjective in the more 'stern' 'strong'  sense.  But that does not mean I do not respect brother Edip's rendering as the Arabic does carry a somewhat multi-faceted nuance.

My humble opinion.

Your brother,
Joseph.