قَتَلَ

22:41.

Commentary:

Talut or Gideon was able to defeat Jalut or the Midianites and curb their rising spirits, but their crushing defeat to which the verse refers as the killing of Jalut came in the time of David about two hundred years afterwards. This is why, whereas the defeat of Jalut by Talut has been spoken of by the Quran as ھزم i.e. routing, the complete crushing of their power has been referred to by the world قتل i.e. killing. The Bible speaks of the man defeated by David as Goliath (1 Sam. 17:4), which is similar to Jalut. Probably the attributive name given by the Quran to the people was also borne by their leader in the time of David.

The last clause of the verse, i.e. and had it not been for Allah’s repelling men, some of them by the others, the earth would have become filled with disorder, gives, in a nutshell, the whole philosophy of all wars of truth and justice. War should be resorted to only as a means of checking disorder and restoring peace, and not for creating disorder and breaking peace. The clause also serves as a criterion between Muslims and their adversaries and beautifully points to the party destined for final victory in the struggle.

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.

7:102; 9:70; 14:10; 40:23.

Commentary:

This verse draws a great moral from the simple incident related in the foregoing verses. The incident of the two sons of Adam had a parallel in the history of nations, as hinted in the words, On account of this We prescribed for the Children of Israel, etc. If the incident simply related to "the two sons of Adam" it had obviously no direct bearing on the Israelites.

As a matter of fact, what is hinted at is that an incident similar to that of the two sons of Adam mentioned here, but of much greater import, was to take place later. There was to appear among the brethren of the Israelites a Prophet whose offering God was to favour with acceptance, while that of his brethren, the Israelites, was to be rejected owing to their impiety and lack of righteousness. This was to enrage the Israelites against that Prophet and they were to become thirsty for his blood on account of envy, even as Cain had become thirsty for the blood of his brother Abel. The story of Cain and Abel was, therefore, intended, as hinted in the opening words of this verse, to serve as a warning for the Israelites. The Prophet meant to be raised from among the brethren of the Israelites was to be no ordinary soul. He was to be a World-Reformer ordained to bring the eternal Law for mankind whose entire future depended on him and, therefore, his slaying was equivalent to the slaying of the whole of mankind, and the preservation of his life was, as it were, the preservation of the life of the whole of mankind. This great soul had killed no person, nor had it created disorder in the land.

The advent of this Prophet was foretold in the Bible (Deut. 18:18-22), and therein it was also announced that God would demand requital of those who did not hearken to this Prophet.

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.

5:2, 97.

Important Words:

انتقام (retribution) is derived from نقم. They say نقم الیه i.e. he exacted vengeance upon him; he punished him. انتقمت منهmeans, I took vengeance on him; I inflicted penal retribution on him or I punished him. انتقام thus means, vengeance, punishment or penal retribution (Lane & Aqrab). See also 3:5 and 5:60.

Commentary:

If a man kills game, when he is in the state of احرام (pilgrimage), he should give as compensation a like animal to be taken to Mecca for sacrifice. For instance, if the game killed by him is a deer, he should offer a goat. If the like of the game killed cannot be found, then an animal costing approximately as much as the game killed should be offered, or failing that, the pilgrim should spend the estimated price of the game in feeding the poor, which is two مد per head according to some theologians and one صاع according to others, a مد being roughly two handfuls of corn while a صاع is four times as much as a مد. If, however, the pilgrim is unable to do even that, he should fast for as many days as the number of the poor he could feed with the estimated price of the game killed. The fasting and the feeding of the poor, as the case may be, should preferably be done at Mecca.

33:12.

Important Words:

لیبلی (that He might confer). یبلی is derived from ابلا which is derived from بلاء . They say بلاہ or ابتلاہ i.e. he tried, proved or tested him with something good or evil. ابلاہ اللّٰه بلاء حسنا means, God did to him a good deed. ابلیته معروفا means, I conferred upon him a favour or benefit. بلاء means, the act of trying or testing; a trial or a test; an affliction of any kind by which one’s patience or any other virtue is tried or proved or tested; a benefit, favour or blessing; grief; imposition of a difficult or troublesome thing. بلاء حسن means, a great benefit or favour or blessing of God or a good gift of God. الابتلاءsignifies trying, proving or testing with something; seeking and desiring; choosing or selecting (Lane).

Commentary:

The words, So you killed them not, but it was Allah Who killed them, signify that the victory at Badr was not due to any effort on the part of the Muslims; it was purely an act of God. Thus, as enjoined in the preceding verse, there is no justification for Muslims to flee from a battlefield.

The Battle of Badr, fought in the second year of Hijrah, began with single combats; then there was a general attack. At this juncture the Holy Prophet took a handful of pebbles and cast them towards the enemy. That was a token for the help of God to come, just as striking the water of the sea with the rod by Moses was a signal for God’s aid to arrive. When the Holy Prophet cast the pebbles, there rose a strong gale which, blowing directly in the direction of the enemy, blinded their eyes with sand and thus contributed to their discomfiture and the victory of the Muslims. It is to this incident that the words, it was Allah Who threw, refer, hinting that really it was the hand of God, and not the hand of the Prophet, which cast the pebbles, and that the victory was due to the fact that God had come to the help of the Muslims.

The reader should note that while speaking of the Companions of the Holy Prophet in the words, you killed them not, the verse ascribes no act to the Companions, but simply denies their having killed the enemy, whereas in the case of the throwing of the pebbles by the Holy Prophet the verse says, thou threwest not when thou didst throw, but it was Allah Who threw, thus hinting that although victory came from God, yet the Holy Prophet also had a share in the affair. He contributed his share in the form of earnest prayers which drew the help of God.

The throwing of a handful of pebbles and sand by the Holy Prophet bears a remarkable resemblance to the striking of the waters by Moses with the rod. Just as in the latter case the act of Moses was a signal for the wind to blow, which led to the drowning of Pharaoh and his hosts in the sea, similarly, the throwing of a handful of pebbles by the Holy Prophet was a signal for a strong wind to blow which led to the destruction of Abu Jahl (of whom the Holy Prophet spoke as the Pharaoh of his people) and his host in the desert. Again, after the Battle of Badr, the bodies of Abu Jahl and other leaders of the Quraish were cast into the bottom of a pit or an old well, and thus the similarity of the fate of Abu Jahl with that of Pharaoh was completed; for, just as the latter together with his host was drowned into the depths of the sea, so was the former with his comrades cast into the bottom of a well.

The reference in the words, Allah is All-Hearing All-Knowing, is to the prayers of the Holy Prophet which God heard and accepted and in response to which He conferred such a signal victory on the Muslims.

5:33.

Important Words:

قتله (he killed him). قتل means, he killed; he killed his carnal desires. قتل الشراب means, he lessened the effect of wine by mixing it with water. They say قتل الجوع اوالبرد i.e. he lessened the vehemence of hunger or cold. قتل غلیه means, he quenched his thirst by making him drink water (Aqrab). See also 2:62; 2:73 & 4:158.

Commentary:

This part of Moses’ vision corresponds to the second part of the Holy Prophet’s Vision. In his Vision the Prophet saw a man calling him from across the road and then he was offered a cup of wine which he refused to accept. Gabriel told him that the man who called him was Satan and that the cup of wine signified deviating from the right path (Jarir). Similarly, in the second part of his vision Moses was shown a young man which, in the language of dreams signifies, among other things, ignorance, power and love of sensuous pleasures. Moses’ objection to the killing of the young boy by the righteous servant of God in his vision meant that Islam would require its followers to bring a veritable death over their carnal desires and passions but that the pleasure-loving Jews and Christians would find fault with this Islamic commandment.

The expression فانطلقا i.e. so they journeyed on, which has been used several times in these verses is exactly the expression used by the Archangel Gabriel for the Holy Prophet in his Vision, namely, انطلق انطلق i.e. go on, go on.

The words, when they met a young boy, he slew him, may refer to the murder by a party of Muslims of that archenemy of Islam, Ka‘b bin Ashraf, the ring leader of the Jewish miscreants of Medina (Hisham).

This verse also makes clear that the Journey of Moses of which an account has been given in these verses was undertaken in a vision because no sane person while awake would kill a man without legitimate cause.