-
Interpretation Of الإثم In Surah Al-A’Raaf (7:33)
In Surah Al-A’raaf (7:33), Allah mentions several categories of things that are prohibited. One of the terms used is الإثم. Almost all classical and modern translators render الإثم as “sin”, implying that all sins are haram in Islam.
However, Ghamidi Sahib interprets الإثم here as “haq-talfi” (violation of rights or usurping the rights of others). My question is:
Why does Ghamidi Sahib interpret الإثم this way in this verse, when in other parts of the Qur’an the word is consistently translated as “sin”, and lexicons also define it as such? Doesn’t this change the general understanding of the verse — particularly the idea that all sins are categorically forbidden?
I would appreciate some insight into the reasoning behind this translation — whether linguistic, contextual, or based on Ghamidi Sahib’s broader interpretive principles.
-
1 Reply
-
Interpretation Of الإثم In Surah Al-A’Raaf (7:33)
updated 1 day, 1 hour ago
2 Members
·
1
Reply
-
When words of thebsame kind are used combined together they reflect different connotations from each other. This is called Tajreed, substracting meanings. If ithm is translated as sins, other sins mentioned along with it in the verse, needed not to be mentioned. When other sins are mentioned with ithm, they are definitely not included in it. There are two kinds of ithm, usurpation and transgression. Udwaan is transgression, now there leaves only one meaning that is usurption or haq talfi.
The word ithm means zulm. Zulm is essentially haq talfi. Transgression is a form of Haq talfi. When transgression is used separately, the word ithm comes to its essential meaning, that is, haq talfi.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
