ROOT ح ر ر

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.

Important Words:

محررا (dedicated to special service) is derived from حر i.e. it became hot; or he became free. حرر means, he wrote; or he wrote well and elegantly and accurately. حرر رقبة means, he freed a slave. حرر ابنه means, he dedicated his son for the worship of God and the service of the church or the temple; or he devoted him to that service as long as he should live. محرر means, freed from slavery; emancipated; a child devoted by the parent to the service of the church or the temple; or one divorced from all affairs of the world and dedicated to the service of the temple (Lane, Mufradat & Jarir). It was a custom among the Israelites that those who were dedicated to the service of the temple remained unmarried (Gospel of Mary, 5:6; and Bayan under 3:36).

امرأة (woman) is derived from مرأ i.e. it (the food) was wholesome. مرء or امرأ means, a man. مرأة or امرأة means, a woman; a perfect woman; a wife (Lane).

عمران (‘Imran). In the present verse the word is either the abbreviated form of آل عمران (the family of ‘Imran, father of Moses) just as they use the word "Israel" for "the Children of Israel" (see 2:41), or it refers to ‘Imran, the father of Mary. See also 3:34.

Commentary:

In this verse the mother of Mary whose name was Hanna (Enc. Bib.) has been spoken of as امرأة عمران (woman of ‘Imran), while in 19:29 Mary herself has been addressed as اخت ھارون (sister of Aaron). ‘Imran (Amram) and Aaron were respectively the father and brother of Moses, while he had also a sister named Miriam. Being ignorant of Arabic idiom and Quranic style, Christian writers, who ascribe the authorship of the Quran to the Holy Prophet, think that in his ignorance he confused Mary, mother of Jesus, with Mary or Miriam, the sister of Moses. Thus they pretend to have discovered a serious anachronism in the Quran––an absurd charge, inasmuch as quite a number of passages can be cited to show that the Quran considers Moses and Jesus as two Prophets separated from each other by a long line of Prophets (e.g. 2:88; 5:44-46).

These Christian writers are not the first to make this "discovery". The "credit" for it goes to the Christians of Najran who, as long as 1,350 years ago, raised the same objection and received a prompt reply. It is on record that when the Holy Prophet sent Mughirah to Najran, a Christian of that place asked him: "Do you not read in the Quran Mary (mother of Jesus,) being mentioned as the sister of Aaron, while you know that Jesus was born a long, long time after Moses?" "I did not know the answer," says Mughirah, "and on my return to Medina I enquired about it of the Holy Prophet who readily answered, 'Why did you not tell them that the Israelites used to name their children after their deceased Prophets and saints?' " (Tirmidhi). In fact, there is actually a tradition to the effect that the husband of Hanna and the father of Mary was named ‘Imran whose father, (i.e. Mary’s grandfather) had the name Yoshhim or Yoshim (Jarir & Kathir). Thus this ‘Imran is different from the ‘Imran who was the father of Moses and whose own father was Kohath (Exod. 6:18-20).

The fact that Hanna’s husband, or for that matter Mary’s father, has been named Joachim in the Christian scriptures (Gospel of the Birth of Mary and the Enc. Brit. under Mary) should not perplex us as Joachim is the same as Yoshim mentioned by Ibn Jarir as the father of ‘Imran. The Christian scriptures give the name of the grandfather instead of the father, which is not an uncommon practice. Besides, there are instances in the Bible of one person being known by two names. Gideon, for instance, was also called Jerubbaal (Judg. 7:1). So there should be no surprise if the second name of Joachim happened to be ‘Imran.

Moreover, like individuals, families, too, are sometimes known after the names of their distinguished ancestors. In the Bible, the name Israel sometimes stands for the Israelites (Deut. 6:3, 4) and Kedar for the Ishmaelites (Isa. 21:16; 42:11). Similarly, Jesus has been called the son of David (Matt. 1:1). So the words امرأة عمران may also mean امرأة آل عمرانi.e. a woman from the family of ‘Imran, or a perfect woman from the family of ‘Imran. This explanation finds further strength from the fact that the words آل عمران (family of ‘Imran) have been used by the Quran only two verses before the present one. So the word آل (family) was dropped here owing to the nearness of reference. And it is admitted that Hanna, the mother of Mary, who was the cousin of Elisabeth (John’s mother) belonged to the House of Aaron and through him to that of ‘Imran (Luke 1:5, 36).

The vow of Mary’s mother seems to have been taken under the influence of the Essenes who were generally held in high esteem by the people of that time, and who practised celibacy and excluded women from their membership, and dedicated their lives to the service of religion and their fellow beings (Enc. Bib. and Jew. Enc.). It is remarkable that the teachings of the Gospels have much in common with those of the Essenes. It is also clear from the meaning of the word محرر as given under Important Words above, that Mary’s mother had vowed the dedication of her child’s life to the service of the temple, and as such she intended the child never to marry, which shows that Mary was meant to belong to the priestly class. This is why, elsewhere in the Quran, she is called the sister of Aaron and not of Moses (19:29) though both were real brothers, for whereas Moses was the founder of the Jewish Law, Aaron was the head of the Jewish priestly class (Enc. Bib. and Enc. Brit. under Aaron). Thus Mary, mother of Jesus, was the sister of Aaron not in the sense that she was his real sister but in the sense that, like Aaron, she belonged to the priestly order.

58:5.

Commentary:

As the preceding verses contained injunctions which if misconstrued or misapplied, were likely to lead to a Muslim being killed by a Muslim, the present verse gives a timely warning against such an eventuality.

The words, It does not become a believer to kill a believer, have been used to make a touching appeal to believers to abstain from killing each other, since they are like brothers. It, in no case, behoves a brother to kill a brother. The words thus contain an important injunction which forms a fitting sequence to the one contained in the preceding verses concerning the hypocrites. The verse cautions a Muslim to be always on his guard lest in carelessness he should happen to kill a brother Muslim.

In case the slain person is a believer but happens to belong to a hostile people, then the offender shall only free a believing slave and no blood money shall be levied on him, because money paid to a hostile people would go to strengthen their military power against Islam which can in no case be allowed.

In the expression, and if he be of a people between whom and you is a pact, the words, and he be a believer, have not been repeated, in order to point out that the law with regard to the dhimmis (disbelievers under the protection of Muslims), or Mu‘ahids (disbelievers belonging to a people in alliance with Muslims) is the same as for Muslims.

It is worthy of note here that disbelievers who are in alliance with Muslims have not only been placed on a par with the latter, but even a distinction has been made in favour of the former. In case a Muslim is slain, the command relating to the payment of fine has been placed after the injunction to free a slave; while in case one belonging to a people in alliance with Muslims is slain, the order has been reversed, the injunction to pay the fine to his heirs being put before the injunction to free a slave. This has been done to impress upon Muslims the need of showing special regard for treaties and pacts. The payment of fine was an obligation which Muslims owed to disbelievers with whom they had made a pact, and in order to bring home to Muslims the lesson that they should have particular regard for their pacts and treaties, the injunction to pay the fine has in their case been placed before the injunction to free a slave.

2:226.

Commentary:

The verb عقد (‘aqqada) is the intensive form of عقد (‘aqada) for which see 5:2. It conveys the idea of greater deliberation and solemnity. Hence the expression بما عقدتم الایمان (oaths which you take in earnest) would really mean, oaths which you swear solemnly and deliberately.

The use of the word اوسط (average) means both 'middle', (i.e. average) and 'best' (see 2:144) and is thus meant to imply that an oath may be regarded as expiated if ten poor men are fed with food the expiator ordinarily provides for his family, but that it is better to feed them with the best food with which he feeds his own family.

The pronoun ھم (their) in کسوتھم (their clothing) may refer either to families or to poor persons. In the former case, the sentence would read, "the clothing (of ten poor men) with the average (or the best) kind of clothing which you provide for your families". In the latter case, it would simply mean, "the clothing of ten poor men".

The verse should not be taken as describing three different ways by which a person can expiate a broken oath. The different ways are intended to represent three progressive stages of expiation, the third alternative being better than the second, and the second better than the first.

The injunction to expiate oaths does not mean that they may be broken with impunity and then expiated. The prescription of penalties is merely meant to meet a possible eventuality. But oaths contrary to Islamic Law are no oaths. They must be broken. Then there are oaths that pertain to the rights of individuals. These cannot be expiated even by adopting any of the above-mentioned three courses. If, for instance, a man promises on oath to give to a person certain sum of money, and then breaks his oath, and makes the prescribed expiation, the expiation will not absolve him from his obligation to make the promised payment. He must pay the man the promised sum, notwithstanding the expiation. The expiation will only atone for the sin he committed against God by breaking his oath.

9:87, 93.

Commentary:

This and the following several verses speak of those who did not accompany the Holy Prophet on the expedition to Tabuk. The passive form in the word المخلفون (those left behind) has been used in allusion to the words, Allah was averse to their marching forth, so He kept them back, and it was said,' Sit ye at home with those who sit', occurring in 9:46 above.

These people not only stayed behind themselves but, as is usual with mischievous persons, also tried to dissuade others from joining the expedition.

Important Words:

اکنانا (places of shelter) is the plural of کن (kinnun) which is derived from کن (kanna). They say کن العلم فی نفسه i.e. he kept the knowledge secret in his heart.کن (kinnun) means, a place of retreat or concealment; the shelter of a wall; a thing which serves for veiling, covering or protecting (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The verse continues the theme of the preceding verse and enumerates some more Divine blessings, e.g., shades of trees, shelters in the mountains, trees that save men from the heat of the sun, armour that protects them in battle, etc. Disbelievers are told that all these Divine gifts and favours were bestowed upon them that they might live in peace and comfort and be grateful to God, but they have, instead, proved ungrateful to Him and have used them to frustrate His purpose. So they shall very soon reap the consequences of their ingratitude.

The expression لعلکم تسلمون (that you may submit to Him) may also mean that you may protect and save others from harm by means of these favours. Read in this sense the sentence would mean that these blessings were bestowed upon the Meccans in order that they might protect themselves and in gratitude to God protect others from harm, but they instead made these very favours the means of oppressing others.

18:32; 35:34; 76:22.

76:13.

Commentary:

This verse refers to the believers, the second of the two classes of men referred to in v. 20 above. The first class of men—the disbelievers, have been referred to in vv. 20-23 above.

The verse embodies a prophecy which met with remarkable fulfilment. It was made at a time when the very fate of Islam hung in the balance and there was no safety or security for Muslims anywhere. But afterwards in fulfilment of this prophecy they were given most fertile and beautiful countries to rule. They had the choicest of fruits to eat and they lived in gardens beneath which streams flowed. The Holy Prophet is reported to have said, "The Nile and the Euphrates are two of the streams of Paradise" (Muslim, ch. Al-Jannah). So it is clear that the Holy Prophet and his Companions knew that they were promised 'gardens' not only in the next life but in this world also and that they also knew that by 'gardens' in this life were meant rich and fertile lands once ruled by the Kings of Persia and the Emperors of the eastern Roman Empire. During the Caliphate of ‘Umar, Muslim armies fought on two fronts, in Mesopotamia and Syria, and when Arab chiefs with their respective claims presented themselves before him and offered their services, he asked them to which of "the two promised lands," Mesopotamia or Syria, they would like to go. This shows that the Companions of the Holy Prophet knew and understood that the 'gardens' promised them in the Quran were the rich provinces of the Persian Empire and of Syria and Egypt. The prophecy was literally fulfilled. When Persia was conquered, bracelets of gold and pearl and silken garments formed part of the booty. These things were distributed among the Muslims and Suraqah, a companion of the Holy Prophet, was made by ‘Umar to wear the bracelets of gold which the kings of Persia used to wear on special State occasions. Thus was fulfilled another prophecy of the Holy Prophet according to which he is reported to have once said to Suraqah, "How would you feel when you will be made to wear the golden bracelets of Chosroes (Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. II, p. 113).

9:72; 13:24; 16:32; 61:13; 98:9.

18:32; 22:24; 76:22.

Commentary:

The words "they go back on what they have said," may signify that after calling their wives "mothers" they seek to re-establish conjugal relations with them. Or the words may mean that after having once called their wives "mothers" they repeat what they have said. According to this meaning, it is deliberate repetition of the obnoxious words and not their casual or inadvertent utterance that renders the utterer liable to the punishment prescribed in this and the following verse.