The immediate verse explains the point translated by yousef ali "For me, I intend to let thee draw on thyself my sin as well as thine" means; (I will not stretch forth my hand to kill you. I am very much afraid of disobeying Allah?s Laws,) it may, however, come about that in defending myself some harm may come to you. You will be responsible both for your intention to kill me and the injury you might receive at my hands. This is the exposition of the verse given by Parwez. http//www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/expo/expo_005.htm

I'm still unsure what it means.

Salam brother

To tell you the truth in all honesty I do not think Allah is giving us a law about who is allowed and not allowed to kill under certain conditions. I think the verse is part of an allegorical story and should not be interpreted or read without context. Remember, the Quran stipulates that we are not to make rules for mankind from the allegorical surahs/verses, the story of Adams two sons is IMO completely allegorical.

You should see it as a story and the message can be one, two, three or any number. We are all different and we can find different morals to any story. Allah wants us to be different so we can share different attributes with eachother. I found one really good (christian) message on yahoo answer regarding Cain and Abel;

Cain is the person who tries to please God through works as in trying to be good on his own terms. giving fruit offerings instead of an animal sacrifice which is what was required. It is like humans thinking they are "good" because they can think of people who do worse things than they do.
Ultimately there is a prescribed "good" that God set up with his commandments that can't be substituted. Instead of going back and repenting and doing the "right" thing, he blamed God and his brother for his own shortcomings. (God was unfair).
Abel is the one who followed God's orders and did the right thing even if it was harder to do. They are also a representation of Christ. Abel being the form of Christ and Cain being the sinners in the world who would reject and kill him

Alright then what I wonder is why did he say "..."If you stretch your hand to kill me, I will not stretch my hand to kill you, for I fear God, Lord of the worlds"..."

And can you also show me that verse you mentioned that states that we are not to make rules for mankind from the allegorical surahs/verses?

Salam Aryan

I understand what you mean. But the story of Cain and Abel is older than the Quran, therefore the "original" can be found outside the Quran. I believe the Quran corrects a minute part of the story. Obviously the jews and christians got it a bit wrong. As far as I remember there is no mention of "even if you try to kill me I will not raise my hand against you" in the biblical scripts..........The Quran puts the story straight so to say.

So take the story of Cain and Abel from the older scriptures, insert the Quranic verse in the fitting place and voil? you will have a story that conveys a message. My personal favourite message is that martyrdom does not involve you dying while killing others. You can only become a martyr of God with passive resistance. For example the chinese dude which stood in front of a tank on Tiaman square........Don't know how old you are, maybe you never heard of it...... but youtube it.....I find his protest the best example of passive resistance....... Anyways a bit offtopic but nonetheless.

The story of Cain and Abel is a story with a message, what the message contains is up to you.

The message you find is yours to keep, but do not cross-reference to other verses or take out a single verse and scrutinize on a individual basis. If you do that you will find many contradictions.

I think I understand what you mean here considering in those selection of verses we had the part that said
"It is because of this that We have decreed for the Children of Israel "Anyone who kills a person who has not committed murder, or who has not committed corruption in the land; then it is as if he has killed all the people! And whoever spares a life, then it is as if he has given life to all the people." Our messengers had come to them with clarification, but many of them are, after this, still corrupting on the Earth. The recompense of those who fight God and His messenger, and seek to make corruption in the land, is that they will be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from alternate sides or that they be banished from the land; that is a disgrace for them in this world and in the Hereafter they will have a great retribution. " (532-533)

Thus I think that maybe since it says because of what happened between the two sons of Adam that Allah decreed the laws of who you can kill under certain conditions which would correct what the son who died could have fought back rather than assume all forms of killing are not allowed. Though that's only a possible theory I am getting from this, but do you think it makes sense some sense here?

I think the person said that he does not have it in him to kill his own brother. Plus maybe he did not think that his brother would actually kill him but was threatening only.There is not enough to go by from this verse alone. The issue here has to do with intentional murder as compared to unintentional murder. It also highlights why murder is a big grave sin. Because killing one of the sons of Adam is almost like killing all the possible offsprings that could have come from that person. If all the children of Adam perished young none of us will be alive today and there would have been no human existence.

I just don't see enough on that verse to make deductions about not defending oneself. Anyways that was the words chosen by a son of Adam and not a Quranic command or even a prophetic command.

Well I don't think it was the idea that he did not have it in him to kill his brother considering it said that he fears Allah. However thinking that it's a threat sounds reasonable. Anyways yes it is true that if they died, the human race could be endangered if Adam didn't have more sons or try to have more sons.

Salam

Have you considered reading the whole surah? Taking 528 only is taking it out of context. You have to (at least) start with 527 and finish with 532. It is a story of the two sons of Adam and their disagreement.

And recite to them the news of the two sons of Adam with truth.They had both made an offering, and it was accepted from one of them, and not accepted from the other. He said "I will kill you!" He said "God only accepts from the righteous." "If you stretch your hand to kill me, I will not stretch my hand to kill you, for I fear God, Lord of the worlds." "I want you to have both my sin and your own sin, and you will then be among the dwellers of the Fire. Such is the recompense of the wicked."

So he found it in himself to kill his brother; so he killed him. He thus became one of the losers.

So God sent forth a raven to scratch the land and show him how to deal with the body of his brother. He said "Woe to me! Am I not even able to be like this raven and deal with the body of my brother?" So he became of those who regretted.
It is because of this that We have decreed for the Children of Israel "Anyone who kills a person for other than murder, or corruption in the land; then it is as if he has killed all the people! And whoever spares a life, then it is as if he has given life to all the people." Our messengers had come to them with clarities, but many of them are, after this, still corrupting on the earth

Thank you Emil but I think I have read the whole thing before of the verses you posted but I still am not entirely sure why 528 is stated as such versus those other verses as far as I understand and believe of the meanings of these and those verses.

i understand Quran as guidance to reach God in the state of peace. from the verse stated - The humble and God fearing person is in such a beautiful situation - he is in peace. he accepts even death in that peaceful state, so he is not tempted to defend or strike back. if he dies, he knows he will go back to his Lord.

the humble and God fearing person will only wish to reach God when he is in peace, satisfied with God and also God satisfied with him. (89 27 -30).

we as believers in God, should not expect bad happenings in our life. This is our prayer. If we expect bad, we reject God and then it is yet to come; if we expect good, then it is there with God's blessings. (1434)

I probably would get into a whole argument with you here as I don't agree as there are verses I believe that it states you can kill people under certain conditions such at what 2290 to 2294 say or what 533 says. So I don't plan to respond to to such statements any further and want a real answer involving all those verses I believe where we are allowed to kill people under such conditions as well as what 528 might really mean in comparison to those many verses.

Also just a heads up, I do not want to die cause I don't know whether i'm going to heaven or hell and thus due to my fears I would like to at least enjoy my life as is and thus why I would like to defend myself if someone is trying to kill me let alone save my mother if she is being attacked for example.

Regardless no offense but I don't plan to respond to such posts, thanks and would like to only respond to ones that explain 528 vs all those other verses that I believe allow killing under certain conditions such as 2290 to 2294 or what 533 states.

Of course, this is what I believe I think at the moment but I may be wrong in all or some of this as i'm never sure 100% so if i'm wrong then please Allah forgive me.

That is exactly what I was trying to say.

How ever, you are missing the point that there are two extremes here, and there is an unclear line between these two extremes. I would probably also take my gun/knife as a self-defence in such cases, but, what if, IF the threat you saw to be a very serious one, maybe because of some specific (uncalculated) circumstances might end up to be a stupid joke?

As you should know, it is a gross sin to kill any innocent person. In fact, killing any believer intentionally will cause you to enter hell for eternity (with no mention about repentance in any surrounding verses, in contrast to the verse dealing with acccidental killing).

Also, see the following verses

2190-194
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
Fight them until there is no fitnah and worship is for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.
the sacred month is for the sacred month, and for violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

Personally, if you really want a good answer, you should instead have to study all the quranic verses about fighting and analyze the words about the limits ordained to us. You won't find any better answer than what is found in the Quran.

First off Quran has stated that Allah forgives ALL sins as stated in this verse

"SayO My servants who transgressed against themselves, do not despair of the mercy of God. For God forgives all sins. He is the Forgiver, the Merciful." - 3953

So don't make it seem as if Allah won't forgive murder of a believer when this verse clearly states "all".

In regards to the verses you showed me, I do agree and I have seen these and the verses I layed out earlier. HOWEVER, the fact that there is a verse such as 528 really has me confused. Why is it that those verses say you can I think but yet that one says no I think. Thus I want to know what 528 might really means if those other verses are as said.

As for the killing of someone who was making you think like that due to a joke, well I think it would come down to intention. If one legitimately believes that what is stated in 532-533 is happening and you kill them, but only after to find it was a joke, I don't see why the person would be blameworthy as they honestly thought they were serious.

What I want to basically know in the end is why 528 has it like that when there so many verses that seem to allow for it as self-defense I think.

Of course, I may be wrong in all of this as i'm never sure 100% so if i'm wrong then please Allah forgive me.

Thanks

consider, when two persons are debating, the person, who, no more has valid points tries to put down the other person by personal remarks. There by, triggering his temper. The humble and God fearing person will not revert back to put down the other person. The humble always stays by the truth 'do not hurt'

this is how i have taken as one of the guidance from the verse you have stated, thanks.

Uhhh we are talking about possibly being killed here and not simple insults thrown back and forth in an argument.

There is one very important problem with the argument that killing is allowed in self-defence, that is, when you (or anyone) is threated to be attacked "what is the exact definition of a threat?"

For example, can I kill someone in the name of self-defence if I interpret someone' joke as a threat?

Sure this is an extreme example, but, the point is, there is NO clear cross. Anyone can say to pretty much every kill that it was in the name of self-defence.

There is one very important problem with the argument that killing is allowed in self-defence, that is, when you (or anyone) is threated to be attacked "what is the exact definition of a threat?"

For example, can I kill someone in the name of self-defence if I interpret someone' joke as a threat?

Sure this is an extreme example, but, the point is, there is NO clear cross. Anyone can say to pretty much every kill that it was in the name of self-defence.

We are not talking about the the vague stuff here. What I wanna know is the obvious stuff like being attacked with a knife or gun, or being chased down to be raped.

In my opinion the first issue informs us as an example about a fact, this is if we consider that Adam was one person and had only two sons and a single daughter.
If this is the case then the whole humanity descended from one single son, the killing of the other son is the other alternative humanity.
The issue then here is about two distinct branches of humanity..
We descended from the aggressive one, the one who killed his own brother..
Is this just an example or is there more to it?
Everyone knows that it is pretty much silly to stay idle when faced with threat.
But here it's not about a stranger, but someone close to you, and dear to you..
How can anyone kill his own brother?
This is the lesson I believe we are supposed to read.

I don't think it has anything to do with killing family as it seems like it's talking about murder in general even though they are brothers. Especially since it doesn't mention that he doesn't wanna do it cause he is family. This is what I think so far, but if I am wrong then may Allah forgive me for it.

Even so, just cause it's family who is trying to kill us, we aren't to fight back according to what you think?

So I would like more concrete answer here please and thank you

Keep in mind 528 is a quote from a servant of God and not directly a decree of God. He did not need to say that.

In God's law it is perfectly just to remove any threat to justice with force. This is the explicit declaration given in that verse.

Exercise your intuition. It is least desired to kill a person so if the threat may be neutralized by any other means then it is incumbent on all parties involved to do so.

I understand however why would he say that he isn't gonna do that due to his fear? I wouldn't think he would not know the laws especially since his father is a prophet.

When faced by 'the truth', 'the arrogant' tries 'the truth' to put down by personal remarks. The humble 'truth' will never stretch back to put down 'the arrogant'.

In English please and with a proper explanation, thanks.

Does no one seriously have an answer this?

The general principle seems to be equivalence or less, so if someone is trying to kill you but they dont and you kill them, then that is fine BUT this would have to be proven/disproven in court. Similar to many Western countries, e.g. UK.

Well i'm not concerned about court here, but rather what happens if you kill someone who is trying to rape you/kill you according to the Quran.

Greetings and Peace, all group

Most street fights are avoidable simply by leaving the area. One who gets involved in the situation mentioned is likely to get the worst of a fight, because they are complying with the other person's plan--falling into their OODA loop. The planner of the fight has anticipated the fight and knows exactly how they intend to proceed. To quote a movie, "Stange game, the only winning move is not to play." If forced into a fight, respond appropriately to the threat--and try to end the fight quickly. Not only are all fights not winnable, but it only takes a single person to escalate a situation. Things can turn ugly quickly.

Aggression is corruption--but children are usually not held to the same standards as adults. Shoving someone rudely is corruption. Spitting at someone is corruption. Cursing someone is corruption. Not as much corruption as killing--but corruption just the same. The key word in response to aggression is appropriateness. Throwing a fragmentation grenade at someone who threw a rock at you is not an appropriate response. In some cases, swearing out an arrest warrant for battery (if a person hit you knowingly) is an appropriate response. I did this one time--swear out a warrant rather than utilize a weapon. I'd also tried to avoid the situation, but was unable to. Turns out, the guy's father shot the assaulter in self defense (over something unrelated) before the warrant could be served. Sad story, but maybe the warrant helped the father get acquitted of all charges.

Anyway, maybe too much "narrative" here.

ALLAH knows best.

peace

~Abdul-Hadi

However to conclude something as light as shoving as corruption wouldn't make much sense to me as the death penalty is then allowed for such a minor thing there. I assume there has to be a line drawn as to when its simply a bad thing vs corruption but what fits into such a catagory is what makes me wonder.

Alright thatmakes sense. Now my other question is what if you end up in a street fight where people are just planning to beat you up much as how some kids beat up other kids in school or high school kids beat up other high school kids. Usually one fights back in these situation but is the attacker here considered as doing corruption cause he started a fight or not due to how it's doesn't involve weapons or doesn't seem like they are planning to permanently injure you.

I understand, though the question was more towards not if the person will die or not but rather what if the person who is being attack fights back with the intent to kill then. Like as a rapist is about to attack this woman and she takes out a knife and with intention she tries to kill him by stabbing him whereever she can and then runs. Basically im looking into the intentions here and seeing if this person is blamesworthy for trying to kill them or not.

I personally believe so far that they wouldnt be due to the verses we referenced on a person who has commited corruption can be killed and thus she wouldnt be blamesworthy.

Greetings and Peace, all group

A person that is confronted by somebody larger or more powerful than themselves may be justified in using a rock, a knife, a firearm, or whatever else is handy to defend themselves. Key word is defend. Having defended themselves, it is time to stop...not continue destroying the other person. Harming a person that has ceased to be a threat is excess, and an aggressive act. In most cases, fists do not present such a threat that a person has to resort to potentially lethal force.

Few things are worth fighting about. If leaving is an option, it may be a good option. On the other hand, anything worth fighting about is worth fighting about seriously.

Personally, I like the options afforded by proper use of verbal jujitsu.

http//www.alpharubicon.com/prepinfo/verbaljujitsugoshin.htm

ALLAH knows best.

peace

~Abdul-Hadi

Okay lets say they are coming to attack someone using some weapon. The defender takes out a gun. He has an option at this point to shoot at any part of the attacks body as they come. He can cripple them by shooting their knees or kill them with a headshot. Normally under the panic people shoot to killwhich is one way of keeping them down and thus defended yourself. However consider there is thenoption of simply crippling them vs killing them, are they blameworthy for killing the attacker? Considering its corruption they are committing I believe the option to kill stands too I assume as it does in war. Am I correct?

Greetings and Peace, all group

Maybe seeking to do corruption has to do with intention/demonstrated intent. Example possession of burglary tools while trespassing might be a clue of intention.

My phrasing was awkward. It isn't possible to prevent a would-be-murderer from killing you AFTER they kill you. Such a person is seeking to do corruption/work evil.

For sake of example A "bad guy" menacing another person with a knife is committing corruption but at the same time is seeking to do corruption. The act of menacing demonstrates intent to USE the weapon. The knife has not yet been used to stab, but the bad guy is projecting that he seeks to do so--maybe even stating that he intends to use the knife to maim or kill. Would there be any reasonable doubt that a person with a weapon in hand stating that they intend to commit aggressive acts is seeking to commit corruption?

ALLAH knows best.

peace

~Abdul-Hadi

AH now that makes sense. The pursuit itself would be both corruption and seeking to do "more" corruption sounds logical ) This would explain why we can kill soldiers in war as they are coming at you even if they haven't killed just yet.

Thank you very much D

One other thing i'm wondering is where does regular fist fighting fit into this? I mean even kids do this stuff so I wouldn't think it warrents as corruption. I mean so far everything we discussed involved a weapon aside from rape which doesn't always require a weapon. So where do fists fit into it other than beating someone to death? Does it even fit into corruption?

Greetings and Peace, all group

To my understanding, seeking (in context of 533) has to do with demonstrated intent...and consequences if that person's actions are not put in check. For instance, one can only stop another that is seeking to kill ; after murder has occurred, one is hardly in a position to intervene!

Conspiracy to commit a crime is also a crime--someone seeking in this context is not exactly innocent. What would a reasonable person think under a given circumstance? If someone were to kick in my door late at night, while wearing a mask and brandishing a weapon...should I suppose that they are there for a costume party?

However, another issue is this in 532, who is the decree for? 532 provides context (and clarifies the sanctity of life). 533 provides current instruction for the Deen.

ALLAH knows best.

peace

~Abdul-Hadi

I understand however is one is seeking to do corruption is still corruption, why even state "seeking" in that verse?

Also can you better explain what you said here "For instance, one can only stop another that is seeking to kill ; after murder has occurred, one is hardly in a position to intervene! "

Thanks

Greetings and Peace, all group

Armed robbery, violence, sexual assault and the like are surely corruption. Such crimes don't build up society, but tear it down. It doesn't make sense to wait for someone to kill you (or someone else) to offer defense as appropriate.

Other instances of the word "corruption" in AQ

533 The recompense of those who fight GOD and His messenger, and seek to make corruption in the land, is that they will be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from alternate sides or that they be banished from the land; that is a disgrace for them in this world and in the Hereafter they will have a great retribution.

733 Say "My Lord has made unlawful lewdness; what is evident of it and what is subtle; and sin, and aggression without cause, and that you set up partners with GOD that which He has never authorized, and that you say about GOD what you do not know."

873 As for those who reject, they are allies to one another. If you do not do this, then there will be oppression on the earth and great corruption.

2748 And in the city were nine ruffians who were causing corruption in the land, and they were not reforming.

Respecting life includes respecting our own lives and the lives of those who need protection. Why offer a criminal MORE respect than another human?

6151 Say "Come let me recite what your Lord has made unlawful for you that you should not set up anything with Him; and do good to your parents; and do not kill your children for fear of poverty, We provide for you and for them; and do not come near lewdness, what is evident of it and what is subtle; and do not take the life which GOD has made forbidden, except in justice. That is what He enjoined you that you may comprehend."

2190 And fight in the cause of GOD against those who fight you, but do not aggress, GOD does not love the aggressors.

ALLAH knows best.

peace

~Abdul-Hadi

Ah I see, well thank you )

However what i'm wondering is the way 532 and 533 are worded

"or who has not committed corruption in the land" (532)
"and seek to make corruption" (533)

532 is saying not to kill someone who has not committed corruption, however 533 seems to point out that them SEEKING to make corruption can be killed. Before actually committing the crime they are only seeking, which by 532 its not right to kill them yet 533 says we can. Thus i'm left a bit confused. hmmm mind explaining it a bit?

I am not restarting this topic nor do I want any new answers to the topic I started or led into but rather I just wanna clarify a part I incorrectly stated

I stated that the dress codes stated in the Quran is like the one in the west for women HOWEVER I shouldn't have stated that as the west allows cleavage and some even allow you to be completely topless which the Quran states to cover your breasts in 2431, thus it would not be allowed.

Just thought i'd clarify that, sorry for the inconvenience. I will not be replying here any further.

Peace!