4:29
-
Peace everyone,
4.29 is mentioned in this discussion.
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4170&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0I'd like to know if you think there is a general agreement about it is referring to suicide, or are there other understandings like what seems from
PICKTHAL O ye who believe! Squander not your wealth among yourselves in vanity, except it be a trade by mutual consent, and kill not one another. Lo! Allah is ever Merciful unto you.
and
SHAKIR O you who believe! do not devour your property among yourselves falsely, except that it be trading by your mutual consent; and do not kill your people; surely Allah is Merciful to you.
?
Thanks,
Elena -
Paz, The Nabi, thanks
I think the next ayat may show that it is 'your people' rather than 'yourselves'.
I see.
Besides, the verse itself contains things that seem to be speaking about the relations with others, not with ourselves429 O you who believe, do not consume your money between you unjustly, except through a trade which is mutually agreed by you. And do not kill yourselves; God is Merciful towards you
If Wakas or Layth read this, why do you think it is about suicide?
-
Salaamun alaikum,
Let focus on the context
O ye who believe! Eat not up your property among yourselves in vanities But let there be amongst you Traffic and trade by mutual good-will Nor kill (or destroy) yourselves for verily God hath been to you Most Merciful!
(4/29)In my opinion, the 'walaa taqtuloo anfusakum'/and do not kill your souls' refers to the act which is opposite of trading between believers. If believers traded with one another, they would be prosperous, as opposed to trading with oppressors, who intend to enslave people in work and metaphorically kill them.
-
peace Elena,
If Wakas or Layth read this, why do you think it is about suicide?
This is what I was led to believe it said. IF the grammar suggests it can mean either, then from the context, it would seem to mean "do not kill/destroy one another", not oneself. Perhaps someone can clarify the grammar. A similar phrase is found in 466 'oqtuloo anfusakum' however this is in the imperative, whilst 429 is in the imperfect active.
Commentary by M.Asad
4 29
O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not devour one another's possessions wrongfully - not even by way of trade based on mutual agreement* - and do not destroy one another for, behold, God is indeed a dispenser of grace unto you! (4 30) And as for him who does this with malicious intent and a will to do wrong** - him shall We, in time, cause to endure fire for this is indeed easy for God.
*If the particle illa preceding the above clause is given its usual meaning of "except" or "unless it be", the phrase ought to be rendered thus "unless it be trade based on mutual agreement". This formulation, however, has baffled many a commentator for, if taken literally, it would imply that wrongful profits from trading based on mutual agreement are excepted from the general prohibition, "Devour not one another's possessions wrongfully"- a supposition impossible to maintain in view of the ethics postulated by the Qur?an. To obviate this difficulty, most of the commentators express the opinion that the particle illa has in this context the meaning of "but", and that the clause ought to be understood as follows "but it is lawful for you to profit from one another's possessions by way of legitimate trade based on mutual agreement". However, quite apart from the fact that this interpretation is highly laboured and artificial, it does not explain why "legitimate trade" should have been singled out here as a sole means of lawfully deriving economic benefits from one another - for, as Razi rightly points out in his commentary on this verse, "it is no less lawful to benefit economically through a gift, a bequest, a legal inheritance, alms, a dower, or an indemnity for injuries received for there are, aside from trade, many ways of acquiring possessions ". Why, then, should trade alone have been stressed? - and, moreover, stressed in a context not particularly devoted to matters of trade? A really satisfactory answer to this puzzle can, in my opinion, be obtained only through a linguistic consideration of the particle illa. Apart from its usual connotation of "except" or "unless it be", it has sometimes - as has been pointed out in both Qamus and Mughni - the meaning of the simple conjunction "and" (wa); similarly, if it is preceded by a negative clause, it can be synonymous with "nor" or "and neither" (wa-la) as, for instance, in 2710-11, "no fear need the message-bearers have in My Presence, and neither (illa) need he who...", etc. Now if we apply this particular use of illa to the passage under consideration, we arrive at the reading, "nor by means of trade based on mutual agreement", or simply, "not even by way of trade based on mutual agreement" - whereupon the meaning immediately becomes obvious the believers are prohibited from devour?ing another person's possessions wrongfully even if that other person - being the weaker party - agrees to such a deprivation or exploitation under the stress of circumstances. The reading adopted by me logically connects, moreover, with verse 32, which admonishes the believers not to covet one another's possessions.
**Lit., "by way of transgression and wrongdoing" (?udwanan wa-zulman).
Wakas
-
Salaamun alaikum Wakas,
I suggest you ask why is it not 'laa taqlutoo bainakum'. The linguists assert that 'anfus' is something which is there to facilitate understanding. This is of course false because if you look else , like 49/9, it doesn't use the word 'nafs'. Nafs isn't your physical body, that's jasad or budn.
-
Nafs isn't your physical body, that's jasad or budn.
You are making many mistakes MQ.. nafs can also mean "Self"
-
You are making many mistakes MQ.. nafs can also mean "Self
I said what nafs ISN'T. Do you know what 'isn't' means? Im pointing out that the semantic space of physical body has been filled with jasad and budn. And of course I can make mistakes, im just human. But I think you've made A HUGE one by believing in that racist porn of yours so you might want to deal with that first.
-
Nafs isn't your physical body, that's jasad or budn.
Interesting... So Allah put a Body (with NO Soul in it) on the throne
Certainly We tried Solomon, and We cast upon his throne a mere body (jasad) ; then he repented. He said, 'My Lord, forgive me, and give me a kingdom such as may not befall anyone after me; surely Thou art the All-giver.'
Another one of Muhammads strange modified version of the Original story he took from the Bible... There is such Magic trick perfomed in the Original story
-
Certainly We tried Solomon, and We cast upon his throne a mere body (jasad) ; then he repented. He said, 'My Lord, forgive me, and give me a kingdom such as may not befall anyone after me; surely Thou art the All-giver.'
Well dude, this is what comes from reading a book which tells you that Prophets and thier kids made whoopie before the kid turned black.
Clear, the non-biological usage of quranic terms hasn't struck you, the Quran used life, death, soul in non-biological terms as well. I cant expect too much from you because the Quran doesnt cater to your paedophilic evil. You're obviously too dumb to recognise this kind of phraseology in english itself. In english, ppl say things like 'he's got no soul'. Do they mean it in a literal sense? Moron.
-
Peace be upon you Elena,
then, The Nabi, mquran and M.Asad interpret it as one another not suicide, and Wakas too if he receives a grammar verification it can mean either one another/yourselves.
my principle is, if the quran phrased it in one way in one verse and another way in another verse it cannot have the same meaning.
Therefore, if we see 4/29, its say to those who believe, not a group of those who believe. If it was to a group, it would have said so. And so, 'do not kill YOURselves' here must refer to thier entire group.
Further to this, lets not forget that in the quran, there's the law of equivalence. Therefore, just because we dont trade between ourselves is no reason or murder anyone!
-
If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever) And the wrath and the curse of God are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him.(4/93).
Here's a verse against any kind of homicide except to those who cause mischief in the land.
-
If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever)
What the hell? God forgives who he wills. Did you miss that part in the Quran?
Did you not know that God possesses the sovereignty of heavens and earth? He punishes whom He wills and He forgives whom He wills; and God is capable of all things.
And to God is the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. He forgives whomever He wills, and punishes whomever He wills. God is Forgiver, Merciful.
-
Hello mquran
can you please tell me your thoughts regarding the following 2 verses where the exact arabic words were used
"And remember Moses said to his people "O my people! Ye have indeed wronged yourselves by your worship of the calf So turn (in repentance) to your Maker, and slay yourselves (the wrong-doers); that will be better for you in the sight of your Maker." Then He turned towards you (in forgiveness) For He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful."
(54)
&
"If We had ordered them to sacrifice their lives or to leave their homes, very few of them would have done it But if they had done what they were (actually) told, it would have been best for them, and would have gone farthest to strengthen their (faith);"
(66)
Thank you
Peace
-
Hi there Ahmed, peace be with you.
Before I expound, I'd like to first explain my principle of understanding. In this case, notice that the phrasing is 'qatl of the nafs'. Lets take 3/164 as a standard. 3/164 uses 'min anfusihim' (literally, 'from thier nafs') as opposed to 'minhum' (lit. 'from them'). This tells me that the nafs counts as an element of understanding. In other words, look at simillar and dissimilar verses and you will isolate understanding.
Ok, on to 2/54 and 4/66 which mention the qatl of the nafs. I believe both verses speak of the neutralisation of the nafs and its capacity of taking over our lives. In the case of 2/54, Musa's telling the Bani Israil to neutralise their nafs in order that they may get on with the Islamic programme. 4/66 shows us that our nafs will be a stumbling block in the path to sacrifice for the sake of Allah.
I suggest you study the verses which the word 'nafs' in them, it does help in understanding this part of us.
-
Hi there Ahmed, peace be with you.
Hi mate, llikewise bro
Before I expound, I'd like to first explain my principle of understanding. In this case, notice that the phrasing is 'qatl of the nafs'. Lets take 3/164 as a standard. 3/164 uses 'min anfusihim' (literally, 'from thier nafs') as opposed to 'minhum' (lit. 'from them'). This tells me that the nafs counts as an element of understanding. In other words, look at simillar and dissimilar verses and you will isolate understanding.
Ok, on to 2/54 and 4/66 which mention the qatl of the nafs. I believe both verses speak of the neutralisation of the nafs and its capacity of taking over our lives. In the case of 2/54, Musa's telling the Bani Israil to neutralise their nafs in order that they may get on with the Islamic programme. 4/66 shows us that our nafs will be a stumbling block in the path to sacrifice for the sake of Allah.
I suggest you study the verses which the word 'nafs' in them, it does help in understanding this part of us.
I agree with you totally that the key word here is "Nafs" whie, "Iktilo" is so obvious to understand, so I will do some home work to look closley at all the verses where Nafs or variations of it and get back to you
cheers
