Slate.com has a great Explainer series that I have referenced in several previous posts. Readers can write in with both serious and trivial questions alike, and Slate will find the best answer for them. A recent query inquired about what seems like a question that everyone should know a good answer to: Are Muslims Allowed To Kill Themselves?

The two Saudi detainees who reportedly hanged themselves at Guantanamo Bay must have been the victims of foul play, their relatives said on Monday. Since the men were strict Muslims, the families reasoned, they would never have taken their own lives. “It’s impossible for Yasser to commit suicide,” said the brother of one of the inmates. Are Muslims allowed to kill themselves?

No. There’s a clear prohibition on suicide in the collected sayings of the Prophet, known as the hadith. In particular, anyone who kills himself must spend an eternity repeating the act in the afterlife: “He who commits suicide by throttling shall keep on throttling himself in the Hell Fire (forever) and he who commits suicide by stabbing himself shall keep on stabbing himself in the Hell Fire.”

You won’t find as clear a statement in the Quran. This passage provides the closest thing to a ban: “Do not consume your wealth in the wrong way–rather through trade mutually agreed to, and do not kill yourselves.” But the word for “yourselves” could just as well be translated as “each other”–which would make this a ban on homicide, not suicide. [Link]

I love taking a look at the linguistics of religion. It seems almost amusing (if not for the great consequences) how a mistranslation or misinterpretation of a word (ancient vs. modern) can propogate down through all of history. Remember my earlier quoted reference pertaining to the role of the sacred cow in Hinduism?

The scriptural reason for this obsession with cows and their protection is even stranger. Vedic Sanskrit is not the classical Sanskrit that exists today. It is an older, more difficult form of the language and one of the words for “light” that is used there is “Go.” Now Go primarily meant “light,” but it also meant “cows.” In classical Sanskrit, the word means only the bovine friend. Thus, on the basis of a forgotten meaning of a word, Indian culture has wrapped itself round the protection of the cow and rendered it a sacred taboo. “Protector of the Go,” in the Vedas meant the keeper of the light–not a cowherd! And all the admonitions about protecting the Go mean something else altogether, and makes a great deal more sense, too. However, it was too late, and the word came to mean, with all its nuances, cow protection and cow reverence! A change in language renders a single word archaic, but the impact on a society is amazing. [Link]

Returning once again to the topic of suicide in Islam:

Muslim scholars throughout history have noted this ambiguity but have tended to support the prohibition nonetheless. Eight hundred years ago, Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi acknowledged that the passage could be interpreted either way but argued that it’s better to assume that it’s about suicide. [Link]

<

p>

<

p>

What about the other major religions of the world? How do they view suicide, and is their view similarly based upon a few choice words in an ancient text? The BBC has a series of web pages on religion and ethics. One question they attempt to explain is what Hinduism states about the concept of Euthanasia and Suicide:

There are two Hindu views on euthanasia:

* By helping to end a painful life a person is performing a good deed and so fulfilling their moral obligations
* By helping to end a life, even one filled with suffering, a person is disturbing the timing of the cycle of death and rebirth. This is a bad thing to do, and those involved in the euthanasia will take on the remaining karma of the patient.
o The same argument suggests that keeping a person artificially alive on a life-support machines would also be a bad thing to do
o However the use of a life-support machine as part of a temporary attempt at healing would not be a bad thing

Suicide
Prayopavesa, or fasting to death, is an acceptable way for a Hindu to end their life in certain circumstances.

Prayopavesa is very different from what most people mean by suicide:

* it’s non-violent and uses natural means;
* it’s only used when it’s the right time for this life to end – when this body has served its purpose and become a burden;
* unlike the suddenness of suicide, prayopavesa is a gradual process, giving ample time for the patient to prepare himself and those around him for his death;
* while suicide is often associated with feelings of frustration, depression, or anger, prayopavesa is associated with feelings of serenity

Prayopavesa is only for people who are fulfilled, who have no desire or ambition left, and no responsibilities remaining in this life. It is really only suitable for elderly ascetics.

Hindu law lays down conditions for prayopavesa:

* inability to perform normal bodily purification
* death appears imminent or the condition is so bad that life’s pleasures are nil
* the decision is publicly declared
* the action must be done under community regulation… [Link]

<

p>

To me all four conditions listed under Prayopavesa seem highly subjective. What is “natural means?” When is “the right time?” It seems pretty clear that Hinduism is not for those who like a shot of Absolut in their faith.

Wikipedia has a good summary of the differences between how the major religions view suicide. Here are some key points from the Wiki page:

• For Buddhists, since the first precept is to refrain from the destruction of life, including oneself, suicide is clearly considered a negative form of action. Despite this view, an ancient Asian ideology similar to seppuku (hara-kiri) continues to influence oppressed Buddhists to choose the act of “honorable” suicide.
• Early Christianity was attracted to death as martyrdom was something they felt called upon by their faith to permit… The most notable pro-suicide group was the Donatists, who believed that by killing themselves they could attain martyrdom and go to heaven. They jumped off cliffs, burned themselves in large numbers, and stopped travellers, either offering to pay them or threatening them with death to encourage them to kill the supposed Donatist martyr. They were eventually declared heretics.
• The 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church indicates that suicide may not always be fully conscious – and thus not one-hundred-percent morally culpable: “Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.”
• The prohibition against suicide is not specifically recorded in the Talmud. The post-talmudic tractate Semahot (Evel Rabbati) 2:1-5 serves as the basis for most of later Jewish law on suicide, together with Genesis Rabbah 34:13, which bases the biblical prohibition on Genesis 9:5: “And surely your blood of your lives will I require…” According to Chassidic philosophy, a soul descends into this world to perform a mission, which cannot be performed in the “spiritual worlds”. This is the Chassidic interpretation of the Talmudic statement “One second in the World-to-Come [meaning both the afterlife and the world of Messianic Era] is more pleasurable than the whole life in this world. But one good deed in this world is more important than the whole eternity of the World-to-Come” (Ethics of Our Fathers, Mishna).

Religion and the way it shapes society fascinates me. I should read up on my Talmud though. 🙂

See related posts: The Long Shadow of Hassan-i-Sabbah, Evolution and Religion: A Science Friday smackdown, What do Hindu Nationalists Smell Like?, “An independent tribute”, My son the fanatic,