ROOT ع د و

7:21, 28; 20:121.

2:62; 7:25; 20:124.

7:25, 26; 20:56; 77:26, 27.

Important Words:

ازلھما (caused them both to slip). ازل derived from زل i.e. he slipped. ازل means: (1) he caused him to slip; (2) he turned him from the truth or from the right path (Aqrab). The word زل is sometimes used of slipping without intention (Mufradat).

اھبطوا (go forth) is derived from ھبط meaning, he descended or alighted or went down. But when the word is followed by the preposition من it generally means, he went forth or he departed. Thus ھبط من الوادی means, he went forth from the valley (Baqa). Arabic grammar, however, permits of the preposition being omitted. Thus the word اھبطوا in the present verse would mean, go forth or depart. Further on (in 2:39) we read اھبطوامنھا which means, go out of it or go forth from it.

مستقر (abode) is derived from استقر which again is derived from قر. They say قر فی المکان or استقر بالمکان i.e. he stayed or became established in the place; he adopted the place as his residence. So مستقر means, a place where one resides or abides for some length of time (Aqrab).

متاع (provision) is derived from متع. They say متعه الله بکذا. i.e. God made him profit by it for some length of time. So متاعmeans: (1) any of the necessaries of life like food, clothes and furniture; (2) goods of the world; (3) any short-lived profit that does not last for long (Aqrab). The word also means, deriving benefit from a thing for some length of time (Mufradat).

Commentary:

The pronoun "it" in, caused them both to slip by means of it, evidently refers to the شجرة or tree. The first two clauses of the verse mean that a satanic being enticed Adam and his spouse from the place where they were and thereby deprived them of the comforts they enjoyed. As explained in 2:35 above, it will be noted that he who beguiled and brought trouble on Adam was Shaitan and not Iblis who is spoken of as refusing to serve Adam. This distinction is to be found not only in the verse under comment but throughout the Quran which invariably speaks of Iblis while mentioning the incident of refusal to bow down through pride, and of Shaitan wherever mention is made of Adam being instigated to eat of the prohibited شجرة (tree). The distinction points to the conclusion that the word Shaitan does not here refer to Iblis, but to someone from among the fellow beings of Adam who was hostile to him. The inference is further supported by the verse: As to My servants, thou (O Iblis) shalt certainly have no power over them (17: 66). As Adam was a vicegerent of God, Iblis could have no power over him, and the being who beguiled him was someone else. Hence, in order to bring out this fact, the word Shaitan, which has a much wider significance than Iblis, has been used here.

The concluding words of the verse, i.e. for you there is an abode in the earth, also prove that the Quran lends no support to the idea of anybody ascending to the heavens alive, for the verse clearly fixes the earth as the lifelong abode of man. Thus the Quran rejects the idea that Jesus or, for that matter, anybody else ever went up to the heavens alive.

A short note here on the word 'satan' will not be out of place. As will be readily seen, the word 'satan' is of much wider significance than Iblis, for whereas Iblis is the name given to the Evil Spirit who belonged to the jinn and refused to serve Adam, thereafter becoming the leader of the forces of evil in the universe, the word 'satan' is used about any evil or harmful being or thing, whether a spirit or a human being or an animal or a disease or any other thing. Thus Iblis is a 'satan'; his comrades and associates are 'satans'; enemies of truth are 'satans'; mischievous men are 'satans', injurious animals are 'satans' and harmful diseases are 'satans'. The Quran, the Hadith and the Arabic literature are full of instances in which the word 'satan' has been freely used about one or all of these things. Thus the Quran says that there are 'satans' both among men and the jinn (6:113). Again, mischievous enemies of truth are also called 'satans' in the Quran (2:15). The Holy Prophet once used the name 'satan' about a thief who had repeatedly robbed Abu Hurairah (Bukhari). Similarly the Holy Prophet once said that a black street dog was a 'satan' (Majah). Again he once ordered his Companions to cover up their utensils containing food and drink lest 'satan' should find its way into them, evidently meaning harmful insects and germs (Majah). At another place the Holy Prophet exhorts his followers to clean their nostrils when they rise from sleep in the morning as 'satan' rests in them, hinting that harmful matter accumulates in the nostrils which, if not removed, may injure health (Muslim).

From the above instances it is clear that 'satan' is a very general term and is freely used about all evil or harmful beings or things. For the meaning of the word 'satan' see note on 2:15.

3:113.

2:91; 3:113; 5:61.

2:88; 3:22, 113, 184; 5:71.

Important Words:

فومھا (its wheat). فوم means: (1) wheat; (2) any corn suitable for making bread; (3) garlic; (4) chick-pea (Aqrab).

مصر (a town) means:(1) a town or a city; (2) the frontier between two countries; (3) the thing that intervenes between two things (Aqrab).

یقتلون (would kill) is derived from قتل i.e. he killed. The infinitive means: (1) killing with a sword or with a stone or with poison or by any other means; (2) attempting to kill; (3) making up the mind to kill; (4) boycotting or cutting off all connections; (5) killing one’s carnal desires; (6) weakening the strength of a thing, as alcohol is "killed" with the addition of water, or hunger is "killed" with food, etc.; (7) humbling a person completely; (8) rendering a person like unto one killed either physically or morally or spiritually; (9) acquiring complete and certain knowledge about a thing; and (10) cursing a person or thing (Aqrab, Mufradat & Lisan)

Commentary:

In this verse another instance is cited to show how the Israelites made no effort to turn the favours of God to good account. When they were in the desert, God sent them Manna and Salwa. But soon after this they began to exhibit discontent with one kind of food and to clamour for a variety of grain, onions, salad and green-stuff (Num. 11:5-11). It may be noted that both Manna and Salwa taken together were considered one kind of food as they were taken continuously for a long time. It is further learnt from the Bible that the supply of Salwa was discontinued after a while and the Israelites were thus left to live on Manna alone (Num. 11:6). As the demand was not based on a right understanding of the wisdom of God Who wanted the Israelites to breathe the free air of the desert for a time, they met with disgrace and drew upon themselves the wrath of God.

God’s displeasure with the Israelites was not due to their demand for other food. The real cause lay elsewhere. Having lived for a long time in bondage and a state of dependence, they had become cowardly and indolent. So God wished them to stay in the desert for sometime, living on game and wild herbs, that they might get rid of their cowardice and indolence by living an independent life in the desert. Thus revitalized, they were to be led to the Promised Land and made rulers of Palestine. The Israelites, however, failed to understand the real purpose of God or having understood it, failed to appreciate it, and foolishly insisted upon living in a town. God pointed out their error, saying that they had asked for a life of agriculture in preference to what was to lead them to sovereignty. He wanted to prepare them for rule over the Promised Land, but they hungered for husbandry. So He indignantly ordered them to go down to a town where they would get the desired things.

The Israelites deserved punishment, because their impatience was the outcome of a want of faith in the promise of God. This lack of faith in God was due to their opposition to His Prophets and, disbelief in His Signs, and they opposed the Prophets because they were transgressors and evildoers. The Prophets invited them to guidance and virtue which they disliked, and, as a result, they opposed them. Thus the Quran admirably traces the causal sequence of every evil to its origin and strikes at its very root so as to prevent all possibility of recurrence.

The words, we will not remain content with one kind of food, contain a threat and are full of arrogance. If the Israelites had meant simply to express a wish, the words would have been "we are unable to remain content with one kind of food," and not as they stand in the Quran. The Bible gives a vivid picture of their insolent and almost rebellious attitude on this occasion (Num. 11:5-15).

The words یقتلون النبیین translated in the verse as "would kill the Prophets" do not mean that the Israelites actually killed the Prophets, because, up to the time of Moses, no Prophet is known to have been slain by them. As a matter of fact, Moses is the first Prophet who was sent to the Israelites as a nation. Thus Moses and his brother, Aaron, are the only persons to whom the words can be applied; but obviously these two Prophets were not killed by the Israelites, although the latter often opposed them and were sometimes even bent upon killing them (Exod. 17:4). Hence, the word قتل in the verse cannot possibly mean actual killing. Its only meaning here is that they severely opposed the Prophets and were even prepared to kill them. This interpretation finds corroboration not only in Arabic lexicons, for which see Important Words, but the Quran itself supports it in a number of verses where the word قتل has been used undoubtedly, not in the sense of actual killing but in that of attempting to kill or intending to kill (3:22 and 40:29). Bukhari also relates a tradition to the effect that once certain hot-headed Quraish youths brutally assaulted the Holy Prophet in the precincts of the Ka‘bah, whereupon Abu Bakr rushed to his rescue, saying, اتقتلون رجلا ان یقول ربی الله "Do you kill a man because he says Allah is his Lord and Master?" (chapter on Tafsir). In this hadith the word قتل is clearly used in the sense of attempting to kill or intending to kill and not actual killing.

It will not be out of place to point out here that the purport of verse 2:59 discussed above is altogether different from the one under comment. Though in both of them God apparently orders the Israelites to go to some habitation, yet the meaning is entirely different, rather quite the opposite in each case. As a matter of fact, whereas in verse 2:59 God Himself willingly commands the Israelites to go to some habitation, His ordering them to "go down into a town" in the verse under comment is expressive of definite displeasure and anger. In the previous verse the قریة or habitation meant only a habitation found in the desert by going into which the Israelites did not leave the free desert life but rather combined it with the facilities of a habitation. On the contrary, by "going down into" a مصر i.e. a town or city as mentioned in the verse under comment, they altogether abandoned the desert life and adopted a life of ease, as is led in towns and cities. Hence the difference. This is why the Quran uses the simple word ادخلوا i.e. "enter" in 2:59 and the word اھبطوا i.e. "go down", a term expressive of decline, in the verse under comment. Similarly, whereas in verse 2:59 the Quran follows up the commandment with the words eat therefrom plentifully wherever you like, in the present verse the commandment is followed by the words and they were smitten with abasement and destitution. The difference is apparent. The former expression is indicative of the freedom of life in the desert, and the latter of the suffocating atmosphere and mental slavery of towns and cities.

4:48, 155; 7:164; 16:125.

5:61; 7:167.

Important Words:

السبت (the Sabbath) is derived from سبت meaning: (1) he rested.; (2) he cut or broke a thing; (3) he shaved his hair; (4) he observed the Sabbath. The noun سبت (Sabbath) signifies that day of the week which is observed as a sacred day in which no worldly work is done (Aqrab & Mufradat). Among the Jews, Saturday was (and still is) observed as a sacred day which was passed in joyfulness and rest from work as well as in contemplation, sacrifice, holy convocation, etc. (Jew. Enc. under "Sabbath").

قردة (apes) is the plural of القرد (the ape) which is derived from the verb قرد meaning, he clove to the ground; he lay in dust. اقرد means, he was or became abject or mean. القردة means, apes or monkeys (Lane).

خاسئین (despised) is the plural of خاسی which is derived from خسأ. They say خسأالکلب i.e. the dog moved away as a result of being driven away; خسأالرجل الکلب means, the man drove away the dog, despising it. Thus the word is both transitive and intransitive. الخاسی means, one who moves away despised by others or one who is spurned by others (Aqrab). الخاسی of which the plural is خاسئین is a word which, according to the rules of Arabic grammar, is used about rational beings only, the word used with regard to animals being خاسئة.

Commentary:

The verse speaks of the Sabbath and its violation by the Israelites. It is pointed out that God’s covenant made it binding on the Israelites, among other things, to keep the Sabbath (Exod. 20:8-11), i.e. observe Saturday as a sacred day devoted to spiritual joyfulness and holy convocation, etc. but, recalcitrant as usual, some among them violated the sanctity of the Sabbath and did not observe it, which brought on them God’s wrath, disgrace and humiliation (Neh. 13:15-18 & Jer. 17:21-23). The violation of the Sabbath was a great sin, inasmuch as it indicated that the Israelites wanted to remain engrossed in worldly affairs and did not like to pay any heed to religion, not even for a single day out of a whole week.

It is wrong to infer from the word قردة (apes) that the profaners of the Sabbath were actually transformed into apes. The incident has been related by the Quran in two other places (5:61, 62 and 7:167-169) and even a cursory study of these verses would show that these people did not actually turn into apes. The word "apes" has been used figuratively meaning that they became abject and mean, like monkeys, the transformation being not in body or form but in character and spirit.

A further proof of this is to be found in the fact that it is a general rule of Arabic grammar that the suffix ون or ین is added to the plurals of such words as refer to rational beings only. In conformity with this rule, the qualifying word used in the verse about قردة is خاسئین which shows that the قردة (apes) here alludes not to irrational but to rational beings, i.e. human beings who had developed the character of apes. Had the Quran meant their actual transformation into apes, it would have used the form خاسئة and not خاسئین.

Many learned commentators of the past have also held the above view. For instance, Mujahid who is considered to be one of the greatest commentators of the Quran, being one of the تابعین (the immediate successors of the Holy Prophet’sCompanions) says: "They were not actually transformed into apes; only their hearts were changed. God has used the expression figuratively" (Kathir). Other eminent authorities have also held the same view, interpreting the words قردة خاسئین (apes despised) as اذلة صاغرین i.e. "abject and humiliated men".

By using the word قردة (apes) about a section of the Jews, God means to point to the fact that just as apes or monkeys are an abject and despised species which, in spite of possessing, in an extraordinary degree, the habit of mimicking or copying others—a habit which, if well directed, should result in progress—ever remain where they are, as if going about in a circle and making no headway at all, similarly the Jews will always remain humiliated in the world, and in spite of wonderful resources in wealth and education will never be able to gain any stronghold on the earth. It is interesting to note that, as explained under Important Words, even in the root meaning of the word قردة there is the sense of abjectness and humiliation as well as that of grovelling in the dust. And what is still more interesting is the fact that, of all the animals found in the world, the advanced people of the West should think of man having descended from the ape.

See under 2:87.

26:194, 195.

See 2:90.

Important Words:

جبریل (Gabriel) is a compound word made up of جبر (גבך) which in Hebrew means a man or a mighty man or a hero, and ایل (א ל) which means God (Hebrew-English Lexicon by William Geseneus, Boston, 1836. Also see Bukhari, chap. onTafsir). The latter word occurs in many combinations (e.g. in the word Ishmael in Gen. 16:11 which means "God heareth" or "God has heard"). In Arabic, which is the mother of Hebrew, the word جبر means, mending a broken thing; giving a poor man so liberally as to make him well off; a brave man. The word ایل is either derived from the Arabic word الله (God) or from the root آل, the active participle from which is آئل meaning Controller or Ruler, i.e. God (Aqrab). Ibn ‘Abbas relates that the other name of جبریل is عبدالله i.e. the servant of God (Jarir), which is simply another rendering of the word جبریل. Thus the angel جبریل (Gabriel) is so called because he is the servant of God; he is the strong and brave servant of God; he looks after the repairing or reformation of the universe, he bestows God’s bounties on mankind and is a liberal giver.

In Islam جبریل has been described as the chief among the angels (Manthur) and was therefore selected by God to be the bearer of the Quranic message, the best and the last شریعة (Law) to descend from Heaven. Many commentators consider that جبریل (Gabriel) is synonymous with روح القدس (the Spirit of Holiness) spoken of in the Quran and the Hadith. Similarly, Gabriel has been spoken of as روح الامین (the Trusty Spirit) in the Quran (26:194).

Commentary:

The Jews had been invited to believe in the Quran, but they refused to accept it (v. 92 above) on the ground that it was said to have been brought by Gabriel while, according to them, the bearer of Divine Revelation was Michael, and not Gabriel (Musnad). The function of Gabriel, as we learn from the Bible, is to convey the messages of God to His servants (Dan. 8:16; 9:21; and Luke 1:19, 26. It is strange that Gabriel is mentioned in the Old Testament for the first time in Daniel and not earlier). The Quran, as the verse under comment points out, assigns the same function to Gabriel. But in some later writings of the Jews, he is described as "the angel of fire and thunder" (Enc. Bib. under Gabriel).

Such was the idea of the Jews in the days of the Holy Prophet. They looked upon Gabriel as an angel of wars, calamities and hardships (Jarir under 2:98). Muslim historians tell us that this idea had such a firm hold on the minds of the Jews that when they were told that the bearer of the Quranic revelation was Gabriel, they said: جبریل ذالك الذی ینزل بالحرب والقتال والعذاب- عدونا i.e. "Gabriel is the angel who is associated with war and bloodshed and punishment. He is our enemy." By saying this, they meant that they would not believe in a revelation brought by Gabriel (Musnad). The reason why the Jews bore enmity to Gabriel seems to be that they had fallen on evil days and as, according to them, Gabriel was the angel of war and punishment, therefore they ascribed their misfortunes to him. There is no doubt that the Talmudic traditions and the Targums were the origin of this notion which gained such a firm footing among Jews; otherwise originally the Bible declares Gabriel to be the angel of good tidings and of the Divine Word. It is evident that with the lapse of time legends and myths grew round the original truth, which was subsequently lost; and the Jews clung fast to their erroneous belief, which stood in the way of their accepting the Quran or, for that matter, any revelation coming through the agency of Gabriel.

The Quran has, in the verse under comment, brought forward four arguments in refutation of the Jewish plea for rejecting the Quran:

Firstly, that no angel can bring down any revelation unless he receives direct command from God. Hence the angel who brings the revelation, whether he is Gabriel or Michael or any other, is only a vehicle for the Divine Word; and even if Jewish tradition associates an angel with calamities, it cannot call into question the authority from which his message originates.

Secondly, that the revelation sent down to the Prophet of Islam is مصدق (in fulfilment) of the previous Books and in it all the prophecies about the promised Lawgiver contained in the earlier Scriptures find their fulfilment, which is a clear proof of its Divine origin.

Thirdly, that when it is practically established that the teachings of the Quran are a guidance for mankind, its acceptance becomes binding upon all right thinking men.

Fourthly, that the Quran contains teachings which, besides being right, are also بشری (bearers of glad tidings) to its followers and harbingers of God’s mercy and favours. Such revelation should not be rejected simply for the reason that it has been brought down by Gabriel.

58:6.

Important Words:

میکال (Michael) is the name of another angel who, like Gabriel, is also one of the chief angels. The word has been described, as being a combination of words, i.e. می کائیل or من کائیل which means, who as God? or who is like God? (Geseneus & Jew. Enc.); i.e. there is none like God, the angel Michael having been given this name owing to his being assigned the duty of establishing God’s Unity and Oneness in the universe. The Jews looked upon Michael as their favourite angel (Jew. Enc., also Jarir, under verse 2:98, 99). He was the guardian angel of the Israelites (Enc. Brit. under Michael). In Islam Gabriel is believed to be superior to Michael in rank, for whereas Gabriel is known as عبدالله Michael has been given the name عبیدالله, the word عبید being diminutive of the word عبد (Jarir, i. 329). In the days of the Holy Prophet, the Jews looked upon Gabriel as the angel of wars, calamities and hardships, whereas they looked upon Michael as the angel of peace and plenty and rain and herbage (Jarir & Kathir).

Commentary:

As an insult to a king’s agent implies insult to the king himself, so those who say unworthy things about any of the angels really find fault with God. The Quran, therefore, declares that the words of the Jews referred to in the preceding verse imply irreverence to God and opposition to His will, such as only an enemy of God could show. Angels constitute an important link in the spiritual chain and he who breaks even one link of the spiritual chain or manifests ill-will against any single unit of the spiritual system, in fact severs his connection with the whole system. Such a man deprives himself of the favours and blessings which are bestowed upon the true servants of God and renders himself deserving of the punishment fixed for transgressors.

In this verse a general mention of God, the angels and the Prophets is followed by a specific mention of Gabriel and Michael. The reason is not far to seek. The Jews regarded Gabriel as their enemy. It is therefore particularly pointed out that enmity with Gabriel merits divine punishment. The name of Michael is also mentioned along with Gabriel’s so that no Muslim might take it into his head to retort to Jewish hatred of Gabriel by speaking ill of Michael, the favourite angel of the Jews.

5:89; 8:70; 16:115.

2:209; 6:143; 24:22.

7:23; 12:6; 28:16; 35:7; 36:61.

Important Words:

حلال (lawful) is the noun-infinitive from حل which has several meanings. حل العقده means, he unloosened the tie. حل بالمکانmeans, he alighted at the house. حل علیه غضب الله means, God’s punishment came down on him or befell him. حل الشیء means, the thing became lawful. حل الیمین means, he absolved himself from the oath. حلال is, therefore, that the use of which has been permitted by God; a lawful thing. The word is the opposite of حرام which means, a forbidden or unlawful thing (Aqrab).

طیباً (good) is derived from طاب meaning, he or it became good. طاب الشیء means, the thing was good or pure or wholesome. Thus طیب would mean, good, pure, wholesome and agreeable (Aqrab).

خطوات (footsteps) is the plural of خطوة which is derived from خطا which means, he stepped or walked, خطوة means, the distance between the two feet of a person while walking. The clause لا تتبعوا خطوات الشیطان would also mean, do not follow the ways of Satan (Aqrab).

مبین (open) is derived from بان meaning: (1) it became clear and manifest; or (2) it became separated or disunited or cut off. ابان الشیء means (1) he or it made the thing clear; or (2) he or it cut the thing into pieces or made it disunited. ابان الشیءmeans, the thing became clear. Thus مبین would mean: (1) a being or thing which is clear and manifest; (2) a being or thing which makes other things clear; and (3) a being or thing which cuts another thing into pieces and makes it disunited (Aqrab).

Commentary:

Good actions must accompany true faith. So with this verse begins a discussion of the second part of Abraham’s prayer regarding the work of the Promised Prophet, i.e., the teaching of the laws of Shari‘ah and of the wisdom underlying them.

Henceforward ordinances about Prayer, Fasting, Pilgrimage and Zakah are given and so are the laws relating to social matters and as food plays an important part in the formation of a man’s character, regulations concerning it are mentioned first. According to Islam, all food should be: (1) حلال i.e. allowed by the Law; and (2) it should also be طیبi.e. good, pure, wholesome and agreeable. Under the second condition, sometimes even lawful things become forbidden. Thus, for instance, the eating of goat’s flesh is حلال or lawful; but if some flesh becomes rotten and putrefied, it will not be طیب and will consequently not be permissible. This distinction between حلال (lawful) and طیب (good and pure) food is not to be found in any teaching except that of Islam. So comprehensive is the Islamic teaching on this subject that not only are conditions laid down as to when lawful things become prohibited, as in this verse, but also as to when even unlawful food becomes permissible (2:174; 5:4; 6:120, 146; 16:116).

The prohibition against following Satan, coming immediately after the commandment with respect to food, alludes to the influence which physical actions exercise on the moral and spiritual conditions of man. The use of unlawful and unwholesome food tends to impair our moral and spiritual faculties, while lawful and wholesome food improves our morals and helps the development of our spiritual powers. This subject is also dealt with in 23:52.

As explained under Important Words above, the word مبین gives three different meanings. Thus عدو مبین would mean (1) that Satan is a manifest and open enemy of man; (2) that Satan is not only manifest himself but also makes his connections manifest—leaving a visible trace of wickedness wherever he treads; and (3) that he is always striving to create disunion among the Faithful and to cut asunder all such ties as God has ordered to be made firm. In this connection see also 2:28.

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.

4:76; 8:40; 9:13; 22:40; 60:9, 10.

Important Words:

سبیل الله (the cause of Allah) literally means, "the way of Allah". Anything done to remove the obstacles hindering people from approaching God or accepting His religion is termed فی سبیل الله i.e. in the cause of Allah; also anything done to further the cause of Allah or any act performed in compliance with God’s commandment. Thus holy wars, missionary campaigns, Pilgrimage, search of knowledge, etc. in fact anything done to further the cause of goodness and virtue as commanded by God is فی سبیل الله.

Commentary:

The subject relating to the attainment of virtue and piety and the incidental mention of Pilgrimage naturally diverts one’s attention to the obstacles that were being placed in the way of Muslims by disbelievers who were making them victims of all sorts of wrongs and even prevented them from approaching their Qiblah in Mecca. The Quran, therefore, fittingly turns here to the subject of religious wars.

The verse contains the gist of the conditions which should regulate a religious war and which were made binding on Muslims. The conditions mentioned in this verse are four in number:

(1) Such a war should truly be فی سبیل الله i.e. undertaken with the object of removing obstacles placed in the way of God and His religion. Any war that is not فی سبیل الله is not a lawful, religious war.

(2) Such war is allowed only against those who first take up arms against Muslims as the words. الذین یقاتلونکم (those who fight against you), indicate.

(3) Great care should be taken that women, children and old men of the belligerent nation who do not take actual part in the war against Islam are spared, for religious war is allowed only against those who fight against you. If, however, an old man or a woman takes actual part in the fighting, the responsibility lies on him or her and in such a case he or she loses the concession. Says the Holy Prophet: "Do not kill an old man or a child or a woman, and always try to improve things and reform matters and act kindly towards others, for Allah loves those who act kindly" (Dawud).

(4) Muslims should bring the war to an end as soon as the enemy desists from fighting, for in this case further fighting is not permissible, as the words لاتعتدوا i.e. do not transgress; surely Allah loves not the transgressors, clearly prove. What a just and noble teaching and how tersely and beautifully expressed!

8:40; See 2:191.

Important Words:

الدین (religion) has a number of meanings including (1) religion; (2) rule and government (Aqrab). See also 1:4.

عدوان (hostility) is derived from عدا. They say عداه meaning, he passed beyond it. The expression عدا علیه means, he acted wrongfully towards him or he exceeded the proper limit against him. The words عاداه mean, he treated him with enmity and hostility. Thus عدوان means: (1) hostility; (2) wrongful conduct; (3) punishment for wrongful conduct and; (4) approach or way to a person by way of justification or excuse against him (Munjid, Mufradat & Lane).

Commentary:

This verse is often quoted by the opponents of Islam in support of their allegation that the Quran inculcates the carrying-on of war against unbelievers until all traces of false religions are wiped out and the whole world embraces Islam. But such a view is clearly wrong. The word which throws light on the true significance of this verse is فتنة (persecution) which, as has been explained in the preceding verse, means religious persecution. This verse therefore enjoins Muslims to fight only till persecution for religion is over. It is on record that during the war between Hadrat ‘Ali and Mu‘awiyah, ‘Abdullah, son of ‘Umar, was once asked why he did not take part in the war when the Quran enjoined the Muslims to fight to put an end to فتنة. He replied: "We did indeed act upon this injunction of the Quran when in the time of the Holy Prophet the number of Muslims was small and a man was subjected to فتنة i.e. persecution for his religious beliefs, being either put to death outright or tortured, until at last Islam spread and the "فتنه was over" (Bukhari, ch. on Tafsir). These words of ‘Abdullah, son of ‘Umar, leave no doubt that the word فتنة in this verse means persecution for religious beliefs and nothing else. Muslims are enjoined to fight until there is no فتنة i.e. no persecution for religious beliefs.

The words that follow, i.e. and religion is professed for Allah, would, therefore, mean that Muslims should fight till profession of a faith is not influenced by the fear of men, but that whatever religion a man follows, he should follow it only for the sake of God, and not out of the fear of men. The above interpretation is also borne out by the fact that the Holy Prophet entered into a number of treaties of peace with disbelievers, which could have no justification if the divine commandment had been to continue fighting until all embraced Islam. The object of the jihad or holy war which the Holy Prophet was bidden to undertake is clearly stated in 22:40-42, which were the first verses that gave Muslims the permission to take up arms against disbelievers and the idea has been further clarified in 2:191, 193 above. Among the numerous other verses which throw light on this subject the reader is referred to 2:195, 218, 257; 3:135; 4:91, 92; 5:3, 9, 33; 8:39, 62, 63; 9:6, 8, 10, 13; 22:39,41; 41:35; 42:49; 50:46; 60:9, 10.

The concluding clause i.e. but if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors, further confirms the interpretation of the verse as given above. If the Quran enjoined the waging of war till Islam obtained universal acceptance, then there would be no sense whatever in the injunction that if disbelievers desisted from fighting and no longer remained aggressors, Muslims should also stop hostilities; for, as the verse puts it, fighting is not permissible "except against the aggressors".