قَتۡل

2:195; 5:46.

Important Words:

قصاص (retaliation) is derived from قص. They say قصه i.e. (1) he cut it (hair, etc.), or be clipped it; (2) he followed him closely or followed in his footsteps; and (3) he described or narrated it. قاص الرجل means, he did with the man the like of that which he did to him; he retaliated on him for the wrong done to him. اقص الامیر زیدا من بکر means, the Amir retaliated upon Bakr for the wrong he had done to Zaid. قصاص therefore, means, retaliation, by slaying for slaying, and wounding for wounding, etc. (Aqrab) or the following up of a murder or an injury with a view to retaliating or punishing (Mufradat).

القتلی (the slain) is the plural of قتیل in the sense of مقتول i.e. a murdered person (Aqrab).

الحر (freeman) is derived from حر meaning: (1) he was free-born; (2) he was of good and noble origin. حرالارض means, the best portion of land. Thus الحر means; (1) a freeman, opposite of slave or captive; (2) a noble person; (3) the good and pure portion of a thing (Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse comprises a very important principle of civil law, i.e. equality of man and necessity of awarding proportionate punishment to all offenders without distinction, unless an offender is forgiven by the relatives of his victim under circumstances that are expected to lead to improvement and betterment of conditions.

The words کتب علیکم i.e. "is prescribed for you" show that retaliation for the slain is not simply permissible but is obligatory. Failure to inflict the punishment prescribed by Law on the offender would be tantamount to a violation of the commandment. The duty, however, of punishing the culprit does not devolve on the heirs of the murdered person but, as the plural number of the expression علیکم (for you) shows, on the authorities responsible for the maintenance of law and order. But, as the singular number of the expression اخیه (one’s brother) shows, the former have been given the option to forgive. The clause, therefore, means that on the one hand the concerned authorities are bound to punish the offender according to the requirements of law, having no right to pardon him of their own accord, and on the other hand the heirs of the murdered person are not entitled to take the law into their own hands and inflict the punishment on the guilty person themselves.

The verse under comment makes no distinction between different classes of persons in connection with the law of retaliation. The words used are of a general nature and apply to all offenders who might be guilty of murder, no matter of what rank or station in life or of what religion. Any person, irrespective of his caste or creed and irrespective of his station, must be put to death for the murder of any other person, unless pardoned by the relatives of the victim and unless the pardon has the sanction of the authorities. The sayings of the Holy Prophet are explicit on this point (Majah, ch. on Diyat).

There is indeed a saying of the Holy Prophet to the effect that a Muslim should not be put to death for killing a disbeliever. But this saying, read in conjunction with several others bearing on the same subject and interpreted in the light of the relevant Quranic verses, forces us to the conclusion that the word "disbeliever" in the tradition referred to above is not general but means only a حربی کافر i.e. such disbeliever as belongs to a people who are at war with the Muslims or, in other words, one who is a member of a belligerent community. In fact, the Companions of the Holy Prophet are all agreed that a Muslim may be put to death for murdering a non-belligerent unbeliever (Tabari, v. 44). The Holy Prophet himself ordered a Muslim murderer to be put to death for the murder of a non-belligerent non-Muslim (Qutni).

The expression, the freeman for the freeman and the slave for the slave and the female for the female, does not mean that a freeman should not be punished with death for the murder of a slave or that a woman should not be put to death for killing a member of the opposite sex, etc. The other verses of the Quran as well as the sayings and the practice of the Holy Prophet clearly establish the fact that the social position of a person or the sex of a party was never considered a bar to the application of this law. The peculiar construction, i.e. "the freeman for the freeman," etc. has been adopted here to refer to, and abolish, a custom of the Arabs whereby they used to take into consideration the sex and the social status of the murderer and the murdered person when determining punishment. If a man of high social position happened to kill a man of humble position, or if the slave of a great man killed that of a humble man, or if a lady of noble birth murdered a woman of humble origin, etc. the murderer was not punished with death, leniency being shown to him or her in sundry other ways as well. The commandment contained in this verse seeks to abolish that obnoxious custom of the Arabs and lays down in clear and unmistakable terms that no regard should be paid to the status of the murderer in the matter of retaliation.

In fact, the law of retaliation, as stated in this verse, is confined to the clause, equitable retaliation in the matter of the slain is prescribed for you, which forms a complete sentence in itself, giving a full and complete meaning. The ensuing expression, the freeman for the freeman and the slave for the slave and the female for the female, is something extra, not forming part of the law. It only contains a repudiation of the Arab custom referred to above and illustrates, by giving three instances, how the law is to be administered. Such an expression is known as جملة استینا فیه or جملة مستانفه in Arabic grammar, and is technically introduced with a view to answering a question which is suggested by the preceding clause to which it is added without any intervening conjunction. The question answered in such an expression is often understood and not expressed (Mukhtasar).

The sayings of the Holy Prophet and his practice also support the above interpretation, for it is on record that he once ordered a woman to be put to death for murdering a man (Muslim), and on another occasion he commanded that a freeman be put to death for the murder of a slave. Says the Holy Prophet: "Whoever kills his slave shall be put to death" (Majah). At another place he says: "The blood of all Muslims is alike in respect of the law of retaliation" (Nasa’i).

The words, if one is granted any remission by one’s brother, show that the infliction of capital punishment is not obligatory in all cases; for in special circumstances the murderer can be exempted from the extreme punishment by the heirs of the murdered person. Such exemption, which may be termed partial as the word شیء (any) indicates, means that the heirs of the deceased may renounce their right to have the murderer put to death and may in place of that receive from him blood money. Or as the Holy Prophet has made it clear, the heirs may, in exceptional cases and with the sanction of the authorities, even grant full pardon, remitting blood-money as well (Musnad & Baihaqi).

It is worthy of note that where the Quran speaks of remission, it uses the word "brother" instead of "heir of the murdered person". This is to hint to the heir of the slain person that he should, as far as possible, take a lenient view of the offence. On the other band, the murderer is also enjoined to pay blood money with good grace and without undue delay.

The concluding clause, i.e. whoso transgresses thereafter, for him there shall be a grievous punishment, is meant to point to the fact that if, after the matter has been amicably settled and the murderer granted a remission by the heirs of the murdered person, the heirs should take it into their heads to wreak vengeance on the murderer by killing him, they will be shown no mercy and will get capital punishment. Says the Prophet: "I will allow no remission in case of one whokills the murderer after he has accepted blood money from him" (Jarir).

The Islamic law of قصاص (retaliation), as briefly stated above, provides a very effective and practical means to put a stop to murder and safeguard human life. A man who shows a callous disregard for the life of a fellow person, loses his title to live as a member of human society. The option to pardon allowed to the heirs of the slain person should not be regarded as likely to encourage murder, for such option is not synonymous with exemption from punishment, as in ordinary circumstances the murderer will have to pay the blood money. Moreover, the would-be murderer possesses no means to know that the heirs of the person whose murder he contemplates will actually be persuaded to pardon him; so the fear of capital punishment will always be there to deter him from the commission of the crime. Again, pardon or remission is permissible only where the circumstances are such that pardon or remission is likely to improve matters and bring about good results for all parties concerned (42:41). Thus, while on the one hand, Islam has made due provision for the suppression of crime, it has, on the other, kept open the door for the display of the noble qualities of benevolence and mercy.

The way in which the Quran has upheld the ultimate necessity of the death penalty is indeed most significant. At the time when the Quran was revealed, people exacted retaliation for an injury done to them with a vengeance. They were not satisfied even with inflicting capital punishment on the murderer, to say nothing of pardoning him. They needed no incentive to retaliation. They were already overdoing it. In fact, the Islamic law of retaliation, viewed in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time of its revelation, implied a prophecy that a time would come when people would go to the other extreme and a movement for the total abolition of capital punishment would be set on foot. So the Omniscient God laid down the law of retaliation in a form that is indispensable for the preservation and protection of human life, as well as the promotion of harmony and goodwill.

To prevent crime, Islam really aims at eliminating the conditions that produce it. It seeks to remove the very root-cause of all crime by working a complete moral reformation in man. But it does not remain content with that. It also prescribes deterrent laws in conformity with the dictates of reason, justice and humanity. The fact that, despite efforts to the contrary, the death penalty is still found on the Statute Books of most countries in one form or another, constitutes a sufficient proof of the wisdom of the Islamic teaching. As a matter of fact, even the most enthusiastic protagonists of the abolition of capital punishment have not yet been able to suggest a suitable alternative to it. They have had to admit that a long term of imprisonment as an alternative is "horrible" and is "not an ideal substitute" (Capital Punishment in the Twentieth Century by E. Roy Calvert, G. P. Putnam, London, 1930). The law of retaliation still remains the most effective deterrent to crime and an essential method to satisfy the demands of justice; and the Islamic Law takes a further step to bring about reconciliation between the offender and the aggrieved party.

2:218.

Important Words:

ثقفتموھم (you met them) is derived from ثقف. They say ثقفه i.e. (1) he faced him or he met him; (2) he caught hold of him; (3) he got the better of him (Aqrab).

فتنة (persecution) is derived from فتن. They say فتن فلانا i.e. he led him astray; he tried or tested him. The expression فتن فلاناعن رأیه means, he prevented him from holding his views. The words فتن الصائغ الذھب mean, the goldsmith melted the gold in the crucible to ascertain its genuineness. فتنه means, he put him in a state of trial or persecution. Thus فتنة means: (1) trial; (2) torture and persecution; (3) divergence of views among men and the disputes and fighting that take place as a result thereof (Aqrab). See also 2:103.

Commentary:

The verse relates to conditions when a war has actually broken out. Obviously it does not apply to all disbelievers, for it only says, "kill them" and not "kill the disbelievers". The pronoun "them" clearly refers to, those who fight against you, as mentioned in the previous verse. The verse calls upon Muslims to fight against only such disbelievers as take up arms against them. It does not call upon them to slay each and every disbeliever that may happen to come in their way. Indeed this verse affords a remarkable instance of the way in which the plain words of the Quran are generally distorted by the opponents of Islam.

The clause, and drive them out from where they have driven you out, refers to the time when the enemies of Islam compelled the Holy Prophet and his Companions to flee from Mecca. It enjoins Muslims to bear in mind that they have eventually to conquer Mecca which being the centre and the most sacred place of Islam, no non-Muslim would be allowed to remain in it.

The clause, persecution is worse than killing, provides an argument in support of defensive war. The disbelievers were persecuting Muslims in diverse ways with a view to turning them away from their faith and they were also creating disorder in the land. It was certainly better to put a stop to this state of affairs by fighting against the aggressors than to allow it to continue. There are circumstances when, to every right-thinking man, war becomes necessary.

The words فتنة (persecution) and قتل (killing) may be interpreted in another way also. فتنة means, "persecution or war waged against a people with a view to turning them from their faith", and قتل means, "an ordinary secular war". Now the verse points out that a war of religious persecution is worse than an ordinary war; for, firstly, worldly interests are nothing as compared with matters of faith; and secondly, wars caused by religious differences are more bitter and cruel, and seldom come to an end.

The clause, and fight them not in and near the Sacred Mosque until they fight you therein, contains a very important principle. Even after the declaration of war, there are restrictions to be observed, and Muslims should never be the first to break them. The sanctity of the holy precincts of the Ka‘bah must be safeguarded even in time of war. If, however, the other party violates its sanctity, Muslims may retaliate so that the attacking party may thereby be brought to its senses.

2:192.

3:84, 91; 4:138; 5:55; 47:26.

3:23; 7:148; 18:106.

Important Words:

کبیر (great transgression) really stands for ذنب کبیر i.e. a great sin or great transgression or great offence. اکبر is in the comparative degree and means, a greater sin, etc.

صد (to hinder) is the infinitive from صد. They say صدہ i.e. he prevented him; he turned him back. صد عنه اومنه means, he kept back from it. Thus the word is both transitive and intransitive. صد, therefore, means: (1) to hinder or to prevent; (2) a hindrance or a barrier; (3) a mountain or a wall, etc., because it serves as a barrier (Aqrab).

یردوکم (turn you back) and یرتدد (turns back) are both derived from رد. They say ردہ i.e. he turned him back; and ارتد i.e.he himself turned back. ارتد عن الاسلام means, he turned back from Islam and reverted to a state of disbelief. مرتد means, one who turns back from his religion, particularly from Islam; one who apostatizes (Taj).

حبطت (shall be in vain). حبط البعیر means, the stomach of the camel became inflated and his belly became bound by eating unwholesome food. حبط عمله means: (1) his work or deed became null and void and went for nothing; (2) his work or deed became evil and corrupt. حبط دمه means, his blood went unavenged. حبط ماء البئر means, the water of the well receded and went down never to return to its original level (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

The words translated as "to be ungrateful to Him and the Sacred Mosque" may also be rendered as "to be ungrateful to Him and to hinder men from the Sacred Mosque".

The Quran has already explained that if disbelievers violate the sanctity of a sacred month, Muslims may also retaliate in a sacred month; for thus only can the sanctity of a sacred thing be safeguarded (2:195).

The present verse provides a further reason for defending Islam, if need be, in a sacred month. Disbelievers, particularly those of Mecca, had violated the sanctity of things far more sacred than a "sacred month"––they were trying forcibly to turn men form the way of God; they were preventing people from approaching the Sacred Mosque and they had forced the Muslim dwellers of Mecca to flee from it. This was a form of persecution which was certainly much more heinous than fighting in a Sacred Month.

Commentators generally state, and in fact there are also traditions to the effect, that once the Holy Prophet sent one of his Companions, named ‘Abdullah bin Jahsh, to bring news about a party of the Quraish proceeding to Mecca. When ‘Abdullah and his comrades reached a place called Nakhlah, they met a small party proceeding to Mecca. Guided by his own judgement and without any instruction to that effect from the Prophet, ‘Abdullah attacked the party, killing one of them and capturing two. The date was doubtful, some considering it to be as one of the Sacred Month and others as not. When the news reached Mecca, the Quraish took advantage of the doubt as regards date and clamoured that the Muslims had violated the Sacred Month. The verse under comment was revealed on that occasion (Tabari, Hisham & Zurqani).

The verse acknowledges the sanctity of the Sacred Months and considers it an act of sin and transgression knowingly to fight in a sacred month, but forcefully points out that the sanctities which disbelievers were violating were far more worthy of safeguarding. Disbelievers were forcibly preventing people from accepting Islam. They did not allow Muslims to approach the Sacred Mosque and they had mercilessly turned the Prophet and his followers out of their homes.

The verse should not be understood to imply that Muslims did start a fight in a sacred month, it only purports to bring home to disbelievers the fact that in view of their persistent violation of highly sacred thing, it does not lie in their mouth to accuse Muslim of violating the sanctity of a sacred month.

The clause it is they whose works shall be vain in this world and the next does not mean that everything that a renegade from Islam, or, for that matter, everything that a disbeliever, does will go for nothing and produce no result. The clause only means that such actions of the renegades as they might do to weaken the cause of Islam in this world as well as those of their actions which they might perform in opposition to the teaching of Islam in order to win the pleasure of God in the world to come, will all be in vain. Thus the clause does not refer to such good actions as a person may perform in the state o unbelief; for, as the Quran expressly states, these must have their reward (99:8) which may either take the form of the acceptance of Islam or that of the lightening of punishment. The Holy Prophet is reported to have said about his uncle Abu Talib that on account of the good treatment the latter extended to him, he is likely to be only lightly punished for his non-acceptance of Islam (Bukhari). On another occasion when Hakim bin Hizam, a nephew of his wife Khadijah, asked the Prophet whether he would get any reward for the good deeds he did before he accepted Islam, the Holy Prophet said, "your very acceptance of Islam is a reward thereof" (Bukhari).

The clause, their works shall be vain in this world and the next, also signifies that if such men as apostatize from Islam had not done so, their deeds would have brought them the great reward promised to Muslims both in this world and the next, but by apostatizing from Islam they had totally deprived themselves of this twofold reward.

Finally, the clause, and they will not cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith, if they can, throws a flood of light on the attitude of disbelievers towards Muslim. They were not only the first to begin hostilities, but had also vowed not to cease fighting until Islam had been totally wiped out from Arabia and not a soul remained to call himself a Muslim. This clear testimony of the Quran should be an eye-opener for those who accuse Muslims of being aggressors in their early struggle against disbelievers. The words, if they can, are highly eulogistic of the Companions of the Holy Prophet. Do what they could, disbelievers would never be able to turn back Muslims from their faith. Their love for Islam was too deep to be extirpated by persecution however severe and bitter it might be.

Commentary:

Instead of directly and briefly saying that "he killed his brother", the verse expresses the same idea in a somewhat longer sentence, viz. his mind induced him to kill his brother, so he killed him. This is done to point to the great truth that it is man’s own نفس or mind, or more properly his own "self" which often becomes the source of evil for him.

8:12.

3:169.

Important Words:

امر (government) means: (1) order or command; (2) matter or affair; (3) state or condition; (4) authority, government or management. اولوا الامر means, those who hold command or exercise authority (Aqrab).

قتل (fighting) being noun-infinitive means both to kill and to be killed. Another reading of the word قتل here is قتال(Muhit iii. 90 & Kashshaf) which shows that the word قتل (qatl) has been used here in the sense of fighting and not killing. The word has been used elsewhere also in the Quran in the sense of fighting (see 2:192). See also Jarir under 3:155.

Commentary:

The words, a slumber that overcame a party of you, refer to an incident connected with the Battle of Uhud. AbuTalhah says, "I lifted my head on the day of Uhud and began to look about, and there was none among us on that day but was bending down his head with slumber." This incident has been narrated by Tirmidhi, Nasa’i and others (see Kathir, ii. 303). As sleep or slumber is a symbol of a peaceful condition, being a sign of hearts that are calm and at rest, the Quran refers to this incident as a sort of favour. The incident evidently occurred when the battle was practically over and the Muslims had returned to the neighbouring height.

The reference in the words, the other party, is to the hypocrites who were at Medina and who had not taken part in the battle. When they heard of the reverse which overtook the Muslims and of the reported death of the Holy Prophet, they, in spite of rejoicing at the misfortune that had befallen the Muslims, became anxious about their own lives and feared what would happen to them in case the Meccans should attack Medina. The words cannot apply to the party of Muslims that took part in the battle, of whom the Quran says, He has surely pardoned you and Allah is gracious to the believers (3:153 above).

The words, Is there for us any part in the government of affairs? uttered by the hypocrites mean, "nobody listens to our opinion in matters of administration; we had advised the Muslims not to go out of Medina to fight, but our advice was ignored, with the result that they were defeated." The sentence might also mean, "now, (i.e. after this reverse) real government and power have gone into the hands of the idolaters and nothing has been left for us."

The words, All government belongs to Allah, signify that the decision in all matters rests with God; or that whatever might happen in the intervening period, God has ordained that eventually power and government shall be vouchsafed to Muslims, who will have dominion in the land.

The words, we should not have been killed here, mean, "If we had any voice in the management of affairs and if our advice had been accepted, our brethren would not have been killed in the battle," it being insinuated that while they were wise, the Muslims were simply foolish. The words may also be understood to mean, "if we were to have any government (as the Prophet had promised), we should not have been defeated in the battle." By saying so, the hypocrites hinted that the prophecies of the Holy Prophet regarding the triumph of Islam had turned out to be false.

It may be noted here that by saying, we should not have been killed here, the hypocrites did not evidently mean that they themselves would not have been killed. What they meant was that their brethren or comrades who were killed would not have been killed. This shows that by the slaying of one’s self is sometimes meant the slaying of one’s brethren or companions. This explains the words اقتلوا انفسکم in 2:55, and تقتلون انفسکم in 2:86. See also note on 2:55.

The Divine Words, If you had remained in your homes, refer to the hypocrites; and by the words, those on whom fighting had been enjoined, are meant the true believers. The injunction referred to is contained in 2:191.

In the clause, would have gone forth to their deathbeds, the word مضاجع (deathbeds) has been used in order to point to the abject cowardice of the hypocrites on the one hand, and the steadfast devotion of the true believers on the other. It reminds the hypocrites that whereas they returned to Medina, thinking that fighting in the existing circumstances was sure death, such was the faith of the true believers that even if the hypocrites had kept back from the very beginning they would have cheerfully gone forth to the battlefield, or the place of death, as it was commonly thought to be. All this happened that God might purify and ennoble the Faithful.

5:65.

4:156.

Commentary:

The words, Allah has heard the utterance of those, have been used by way of rebuke and warning, meaning that God is not unaware of these impudent utterances and that the utterers will certainly have to answer for them.

The words, Allah is poor and we are rich, were uttered by the Jews on behalf of the hypocrites and as an expression of their thoughts when the latter were called upon to spend their wealth in the cause of Allah (3:181). These words also express the thoughts of those niggardly persons and the weak of faith who join a new religion but find it hard to comply with its ever-growing monetary demands and sometimes cry out in impatience: "Has Allah become poor that we are asked to spend our hard-earned money in His cause?" In fact, one of the principal causes of the opposition to a new religious movement is reluctance on the part of the people to undergo the sacrifices of money and comfort that it demands.

The words, We shall record what they have said, signify that God will not let such mischievous utterances go unpunished, implying that what is forgiven is, as it were, not recorded.

5:14.

3:182.

2:89.

2:89; 16:109; 83:15.

Important Words:

طبع (sealed) is similar to ختم for which see 2:8. طبع means, he sealed, stamped, imprinted or impressed (Lane).

غلف (wrapped in covers). See 2:89.

Commentary:

See 2:8; 2:62; 2:89.

Commentary:

The "associate-gods" here referred to are divines, soothsayers and others. The "killing of children" happened in three ways: (1) some of the Arabs killed their female children and preserved the male ones; (2) some took the vow that if they had a certain number of children, whether male or female, one of them would be slaughtered in the name of God or in the name of one of their deities; and (3) sometimes they sacrificed their children to avert a calamity.

The word کثیر (many) in the expression, to many of the idolaters, shows that all Arabs did not indulge in this practice, nor even most of them, but only a considerable number. But, whatever the number, the practice provides one more instance of how men go astray when they begin to make laws for themselves with the sole aid of reason.

The particle ل (that) in لیـردوھم (that they may ruin them) is here used to express عاقبة (the result) and not the cause or motive. Thus, the sentence would mean that the result of the action of the associate-gods was that men who followed them were spiritually ruined. When a man goes so far as even to sacrifice his son in obedience to another person’s bidding, then he is entirely under the latter’s control, and is thus completely ruined in respect of religion.

6:152.

Important Words:

املاق (poverty) is the noun-infinitive from ملق. They say ملق الشیء i.e. he effaced or blotted out the thing. املق الرجل means, the man spent his money so much that he became poor. املق الثوب means, he washed the cloth. They say املق الدھر ماله i.e. time took away his money from his hands. املاق means, to be or grow poor; poverty (Aqrab).

Commentary:

V. 29 enjoins the giving of wealth in charity but not in a way as to do moral injury to the recipient or to involve the giver himself in pecuniary trouble. The verse under comment condemns the begrudging of adequate funds or means for the proper education and upbringing of children and calls it a form of killing. It does not, however, refer to the Arab custom of killing girls, which is dealt with elsewhere and which is nowhere said to be due to the fear of spending money on them. Girls were slain because their birth was looked upon as a source of disgrace and humiliation for their parents (16:59, 60 & 43:18).

Evidently there hardly lives a person so foolish as actually to kill his children in order to save his money. But there is no dearth of persons even among the so-called educated and cultured classes who "kill" their children by not giving them proper food or clothing. Children of miserly parents fall victim to various kinds of diseases because they are not given the food which is essential for the proper building up of strong and healthy bodies. These children die prematurely from malnutrition. This refusal to provide proper nourishment for them is as good as killing them and has been so called.

Taking the word قتل (killing) in a figurative sense those miserly parents who do not give proper education to their children contribute to the latter’s moral and intellectual death. The verse under comment very strongly condemns such "killing" of innocent children who, if given right kind of education and also afforded proper opportunities to rise to their full stature are capable of becoming very useful members of society. It exhorts Muslims not to spare money to equip their children physically and morally for a successful and respectable life.

The word قتل (killing) has been used in the verse in order forcibly to draw attention to the various indirect ways in which some parents cause the death of their children. One such form of killing is to neglect to provide proper nourishment for pregnant women or exact heavy tasks from them during their pregnancy or in the period of suckling, which has a very adverse effect on the health of the child. By using this word the Quran emphatically has drawn attention to all those direct or indirect causes that lead to the ruining of the physical or moral health of children.

The killing of children may also take the form of birth control which, however, is permissible if, for instance, by conception the life of a pregnant woman is considered, by competent medical authority, to be in danger in the event of her giving birth to a child. The words خطا (khit’an) and خطا (khat’an) differ in their significance), the former being intentional, while the latter may both be intentional or unintentional (Aqrab). The Quran has used the former word to bring home the fact that the killing of children is a crime at which human nature recoils and only a person devoid of all human feelings is capable of committing it. The expression ان قتلھم کان خطأ کبیرا also indicates that it is not killing by a lethal weapon or by poisoning or other similar means that is meant here. This latter kind of killing has been clearly mentioned in v. 34.

6:152; 25:69.

Commentary:

In the preceding two verses reference was made to the two indirect ways of killing. The verse under comment, however, speaks of direct murder. It declares it unlawful to kill a soul, the killing of which has been forbidden by God.

The word نفس (soul) means anything which breathes and therefore includes all living things. So the words, which Allah has forbidden, have been added in order to restrict their application to man, it being lawful to kill other animals except under certain conditions when their killing also is forbidden.

The word ولی (heir) is applied to any person who is entitled to inherit another man’s property after the latter’s death. But one may nominate a person other than his legal heir as his ولی. If a person is murdered, his ولی (heir) has the right to demand satisfaction. But after the murderer is convicted by a properly constituted court, the heir of the murdered person has the right either to have the murderer legally executed or accept blood-money in lieu of the death of the murdered person. If, however, it is considered against the interests of public peace or morality to allow blood money to the heir or if the demand of the heir be found to be not bona fide, the court may refuse to accept the option of the heir and order the murderer’s execution. In fact, both the heir and the State equally share the right to pardon or punish the guilty person. This right of the State in regard to the punishment of the guilty person covers all matters to which the injunction of قصاص(retaliation) applies. The Caliph ‘Ali is reported to have punished a guilty person whom the aggrieved party had pardoned on the plea that the dictates of public peace demanded his punishment. ‘Ali was convinced that the fear of being harmed by the offender had made the aggrieved person pardon him. See also 2:179.

Whereas in the earlier part of the verse the rights of the party offended against have been safeguarded, the words, let him not exceed the prescribed bounds in slaying, safeguard the interests of the offender. They mean to say that the aggrieved party should not exceed legitimate bounds by adopting a cruel method of killing. In fact, these words imply a recommendation in favour of the murderer. They also show that although "life for life" is the general rule, the heirs of the murdered person may not always act upon this rule. The murderer is to suffer the extreme penalty of the law only when the dictates of equity, retaliation, public peace and morality absolutely demand it. His life should be spared if this act of grace is calculated to lead to his moral reformation. In the words, for therein he is helped by law, the aggrieved person is reminded of his responsibilities. He is told that he, too, is responsible for the maintenance of peace. As God has safeguarded his rights, he should have regard for the rights of others—he should not always insist upon his "pound of flesh".