تَحْرِيرُ
Appears 3 times in Quran
Derived Words (4)
Words derived from the stem "تَحْرِيرُ".
- and free
- then the offender shall free a believing slave
- freeing
- shall free
- freeing
Occurrences in Quran
Found 3 verses containing "تَحْرِيرُ".
وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ أَن يَقْتُلَ مُؤْمِنًا إِلَّا خَطَـًٔا ۚ وَمَن قَتَلَ مُؤْمِنًا خَطَـًٔا فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُّؤْمِنَةٍ وَدِيَةٌ مُّسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَىٰٓ أَهْلِهِۦٓ إِلَّآ أَن يَصَّدَّقُوا۟ ۚ فَإِن كَانَ مِن قَوْمٍ عَدُوٍّ لَّكُمْ وَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُّؤْمِنَةٍ ۖ وَإِن كَانَ مِن قَوْمٍۭ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُم مِّيثَٰقٌ فَدِيَةٌ مُّسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَىٰٓ أَهْلِهِۦ وَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُّؤْمِنَةٍ ۖ فَمَن لَّمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ شَهْرَيْنِ مُتَتَابِعَيْنِ تَوْبَةً مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ ۗ وَكَانَ ٱللَّهُ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا
58:5.
As when actual or virtual state of war exists there is the likelihood that a Muslim may be killed by another Muslim by mistake, the present verse gives a timely warning to Muslims to be always on their guard against such an eventuality.
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. 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 the Muslims.
It is worthy of note 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 their favour. In case a Muslim is slain, the command relating to the payment of penalty 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 penalty to his heirs having been 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 penalty was an obligation which Muslims owed to disbelievers with whom they had made a pact, and it is in order to bring home to them the lesson that they should have particular regard for their pacts and treaties, that the injunction to pay the penalty has in their case been placed before the injunction to free a slave.
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.
a
9:5.
b
58:5.
a
58:5.
561
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.
a
58:5.
649
As when actual or virtual state of war exists there is the likelihood that a Muslim may be killed by another Muslim by mistake, the present verse gives a timely warning to Muslims to be always on their guard against such an eventuality.
650
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. 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 the Muslims.
651
It is worthy of note 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 their favour. In case a Muslim is slain, the command relating to the payment of penalty 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 penalty to his heirs having been 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 penalty was an obligation which Muslims owed to disbelievers with whom they had made a pact, and it is in order to bring home to them the lesson that they should have particular regard for their pacts and treaties, that the injunction to pay the penalty has in their case been placed before the injunction to free a slave.
لَا يُؤَاخِذُكُمُ ٱللَّهُ بِٱللَّغْوِ فِىٓ أَيْمَٰنِكُمْ وَلَٰكِن يُؤَاخِذُكُم بِمَا عَقَّدتُّمُ ٱلْأَيْمَٰنَ ۖ فَكَفَّٰرَتُهُۥٓ إِطْعَامُ عَشَرَةِ مَسَٰكِينَ مِنْ أَوْسَطِ مَا تُطْعِمُونَ أَهْلِيكُمْ أَوْ كِسْوَتُهُمْ أَوْ تَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ ۖ فَمَن لَّمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ ثَلَٰثَةِ أَيَّامٍ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ كَفَّٰرَةُ أَيْمَٰنِكُمْ إِذَا حَلَفْتُمْ ۚ وَٱحْفَظُوٓا۟ أَيْمَٰنَكُمْ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ ٱللَّهُ لَكُمْ ءَايَٰتِهِۦ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ
دیکھئے نوٹ سورۂ بقرہ آیت ۲۲۶۔
2:226.
Oaths which are contrary to Islamic Law are mere wasted breath.
Ausat means both "middle" (average) and "the best."
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.
d
2:226.
393
اَوْسَطْ (Ausat) 既指 “中等” (平均), 又指 “最好”。
1
دیکھئے نوٹ سورۂ بقرہ آیت ۲۲۶۔
d
2:226.
717
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.
e
2:226.
789
Oaths which are contrary to Islamic Law are mere wasted breath.
790
Ausat means both "middle" (average) and "the best."
وَٱلَّذِينَ يُظَٰهِرُونَ مِن نِّسَآئِهِمْ ثُمَّ يَعُودُونَ لِمَا قَالُوا۟ فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مِّن قَبْلِ أَن يَتَمَآسَّا ۚ ذَٰلِكُمْ تُوعَظُونَ بِهِۦ ۚ وَٱللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرٌ
The words, "they would 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 they 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.
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.
4174
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.
3002
The words, "they would 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 they 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.