حَرَّمَ

5:4; 6:146; 16:116.

Important Words:

المیتة (that which dies of itself) is derived from مات i.e. he died. میتة means: (1) an animal that has died a natural death (Aqrab); (2) an animal that has not been slaughtered in a manner prescribed by Law (Lane & Mufradat).

الخنزیر (swine). Authorities differ as to the derivation of this word, some deriving it from خنزر and others from خزر. The word الخنزرة means, hard and rugged land; or a clumsy, badly-finished axe. خزر الرجل means, the man looked with the hinder parts or outer angles of his eyes (Lisan). خزرت العین means, the eye was or became narrow and small. خزر الرجل means, the man looked from the outer angle of the eye; or he had a distortion of one of his eyes. The Arabs say: کل خنزیراخزر i.e. all swine look from the outer angles of their eyes. خزر المرء means the man affected or pretended to be cunning. الخنزیر means, the swine, the hog, the pig; a certain well-known foul animal the eating of whose flesh is said to be forbidden by every Prophet (Lane). The Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement says of the word خنزیر: "The very name of this foul animal contains an allusion to the prohibition of its flesh. It is a combination of خنز and ار, the first part meaning, 'very foul' and the second, 'I see'. The word thus literally means, 'I see it very foul'…What is yet more remarkable is that in Hindi this animal is known by the name سؤر which is similarly composed of two words, i.e. سوء and ار, the latter part being identical with the latter part of the Arabic word and the former being the exact equivalent of the first part of the Arabic form. The Hindi word, therefore, exactly means the same as the Arabic, viz. 'I see it very foul'…In Hindi this animal is also known as بد meaning bad or foul which is probably a translation of the original Arabic word" (Teachings of Islam).

أھل (invoked) is derived from ھل meaning, it (the moon) made its appearance; he (the man) cried aloud. اھل also means, it made its appearance; he called or cried aloud. اھل بالتسمیة علی الذبیحة means, he invoked or pronounced the name of God while slaughtering an animal. اھل السیف بفلان means, the sword cut into him ( Aqrab). اھلال which is the infinitive-noun from اھل means, to raise one’s voice aloud by way of exclamation, on seeing the ھلال or the moon of the first night (Mufradat). Thus اھل به لغیر الله would mean, on which the name of anything besides God has been invoked at the time of slaughter; or which has been cut or slaughtered for a being other than God.

اضطر (driven by necessity) is derived from ضر which means, it did harm. ضرہ الی کذا means, it forced him to resort to that. اضطره means, he compelled him against his will. اضطره الی کذا means, he compelled him against his will to have recourse to that (Aqrab).

باغ (disobedient) is derived from بغی meaning, he rebelled; he disobeyed; he committed a wrong. باغ is really باغی being the active participle from بغی meaning, one who disobeys; one who is rebellious (Aqrab).

عاد (exceeding the limit) is the active participle from عدا i.e. he exceeded the proper or the prescribed limit. عدی علیهmeans, he transgressed against him. عاد is really عادی meaning, one who exceeds the limit (Aqrab).

اثم (sin). The verb اثم means, he did a thing which was unlawful for him; he did a thing which made him deserving of punishment. Thus the noun اثم means: (1) anything unlawful, i.e. a sin; (2) anything which makes a person deserving of punishment (Aqrab); (3) anything that pricks the mind as something evil (Mufradat).

Commentary:

This verse speaks only of food that is حرام or unlawful. It makes no mention of طیبات or pure and wholesome things to which reference has already been made in the preceding verse. It should not be supposed that the four things mentioned in this verse are the only things prohibited in Islam. As a matter of fact, Islam prohibits the use of many things; but they are divided into grades or classes, some of them being حرام or unlawful and others being ممنوع or simply forbidden. The verse under comment mentions only the former class. The forbidden things have been stated by the Holy Prophet and are mentioned in Hadith. They must not be used by the Faithful but they cannot be called حرام or unlawful. In fact, there is a great difference between unlawful (حرام) and forbidden (ممنوع) things. Islam recognizes due difference in the importance of different things, and so all prohibitions cannot be classed together and treated as of equal importance. The use of حرام or an unlawful thing has a great and direct bearing on the moral and spiritual development of man but it is not so with a ممنوع or forbidden thing which stands on a lower level of importance, though both are prohibited.

Among the things declared حرام or unlawful in this verse, the injuriousness of consuming blood and the flesh of a dead animal as food has been recognized by most authorities on medicine. The use of the flesh of swine has also proved to be injurious not only to the physical health of man, but also to his moral and spiritual health. The swine eats filth and takes delight in living in dirty places. It has indecent habits and possesses the evil trait of sex-perversion. Tape-worms, scrofula, cancer and encysted trichina are known to be more prevalent among pork-eating peoples. The use of pork also causes trichinosis.

The clause, and that on which the name of any other than Allah has been invoked, refers to that animal at the time of whose slaughter the name of any deity other than Allah is invoked or that animal which is slaughtered with a view to winning the pleasure of an idol or a saint etc., even though the name of Allah may have been mentioned while slaughtering it. Hence, all such animals as are sacrificed in order to propitiate a false deity or a saint, or any food that is cooked as an offering to a deceased person have been condemned as unlawful. Such foods are spiritually harmful. The incentive to these offerings is شرك (i.e. idolatry) and شرك is tantamount to rebellion against God.

In spite of the fact that the above mentioned things have been declared to be unlawful, the verse goes on to say that if for want of food the very life of a person should be in danger, considerations of the preservation of human life must temporarily prevail over other considerations. This is a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. Hence the verse very wisely makes an exception in case of a real and urgent necessity when no other food is available and one is in real danger of losing one’s life if one does not use the unlawful food. In fact, of the four unlawful things, the first three have been declared unlawful mostly on the basis of the fact that they are injurious to physical and moral health, and it is certainly wise to permit their use in case of urgent necessity when there is real danger to life. As for the fourth thing, i.e. a food consecrated to any other being beside Allah, it is evident that it is not injurious intrinsically. It is injurious only from the point of view of faith. Therefore when such a thing is used merely to save one’s life, which may be so usefully employed in the service of religion, there can be no real objection in eating it, because this extremely rare act cannot be considered as involving شرك or idolatry, particularly when it is performed with the sanction of God.

Permission for the exceptional use of such things is, however, qualified by two important conditions: (1) that one who resorts to this use must not be باغی (i.e. disobedient). There should be no lurking spirit of revolt or disobedience behind the act. The circumstances must be real and the condition genuine, and nothing should be done out of design and wilfulness; (2) that the user of unlawful food under exceptional circumstances should not become عاد i.e. he should not exceed the limit. He should confine himself to such quantity only as is absolutely essential to save life. Thus the exceptional use is permissible only at a time when one is under bona fide constraint and is in real danger, and then only to the extent which is absolutely necessary for saving life.

Though it has been declared in this verse that there is no sin in partaking of a prohibited food when no revolt or transgression is intended, yet as one might err in judging what is revolt or transgression and what is not, and thus be unconsciously guilty of breaking a divine commandment, the Quran adds the words: surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful, meaning that an unintentional deviation will be forgiven by the Merciful God. The clause also reminds a Muslim that though it has been made permissible for him to take unlawful food in exceptional circumstances, yet such circumstances may be due to certain hidden shortcomings of his own for which he should seek God’s forgiveness, and that if he does so he will find God Forgiving and Merciful. In this connection see also 5:4; 6:146 & 16:116.

Important Words:

کل (all) is a very common Arabic word used to express two senses: (1) all members of a group; (2) all parts of an individual thing. The word may generally be rendered as, all; whole; each; every one, etc. It is also sometimes used in the sense of "the majority of", and rarely even in the sense of "some" or "part of" (Aqrab & Taj)

Commentary:

The preceding verses emphasize the importance of complete submission to the will of God. The highest good cannot be attained without the sacrifice of most beloved things, including personal and national sentiments. The present verse cites an apt illustration. Whereas God had allowed "all food" to the Jews, the Israelites forbade themselves parts thereof on the ground that Jacob, for personal and medical considerations, abstained from partaking of them. But as the word Israel, primarily the name of Jacob, is also used about his children and descendants and has been so used in the Bible, it may also be taken in this sense in the second clause of the present verse.

By saying, All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, the Quran also refutes an objection of the People of the Book, which served as an obstacle in the way of their accepting Islam. There were certain kinds of food which the Jews abstained from eating but which were allowed by Islam. One such thing was the sciatic nerve, to which reference is made in Gen. 32:32. Jacob suffered from sciatica, and, therefore, for medical reasons he forbade himself the use of the sciatic nerve as food. This was a personal matter but the Children of Israel followed his example blindly and made it a rule of conduct to abstain from the eating of the sinew. It was not forbidden by Law, the abstention being purely voluntary.

Moreover, the incident which led to the abandonment of the sciatic nerve as food by Israel and later by the Israelites took place long before the Torah was revealed. The Torah itself does not forbid it but merely mentions it as a practice of the Jews who had, therefore, no right to object to its use by the Muslims. The objection, if valid, also held good against Abraham and many other Prophets. Besides, there are some foods which were used by Abraham and his descendants but were later forbidden by the Torah. The camel is an instance of this kind. Hence, the verse purports to say that if certain foods used by the patriarchs are allowed to other peoples, the Jews have no right to object.

It may be pointed out here that there is a difference of meaning between کل طعام (kullu-ta‘amin) and کل الطعام (kullut-ta‘ami) as used in the present verse. The former means, every kind of food, while the latter means, all food, i.e. the whole food. It appears that the Jews objected that the Muslims ate the whole meat, not excepting even the nerve.

4:172; 5:18; 9:30.

5:118; 19:37.

Commentary:

That Jesus taught the Israelites to worship God alone is apparent even from the Gospels in their present distorted form (e.g. Matt. 4:10; Luke 4:8). Also see 5:18.

2:174; 5:4-5; 6:146; 16:116.

Commentary:

In this verse the objection of disbelievers has been answered in the very words in which it was made. Their objection was that Muslims profess to be devoted to the name of Allah, yet they do not eat of the flesh of the animal killed by God, i.e. the animal that dies of itself. The answer given in the present verse is, "when we are devoted to Allah, why should we not eat of the food on which the name of our Lord is pronounced?" But the name of God is not pronounced on an animal that dies of itself. Its death takes place under the general law of nature.

The words, He has already explained, refer to 16:116, which was revealed earlier.

The word "mislead" signifies that man-made teachings, which are given by most men in opposition to the teachings of God, only lead people astray.

The word "transgressors" at the end of the verse indicates that the objections raised against the teachings of God have their source in malice and enmity and those who bring forward such objections are indeed transgressors.

Important Words:

ازواج (mates) is the plural of زوج (a mate). The word is used to signify, one of the pair, whether male or female and whether among human beings or among animals, or whether among plants or among any class of things.

الضأن (sheep is the plural of الضائن (one sheep). The word is applied to all animals of the class of غنم (which cover both sheep and goats) having wool (Aqrab & Lane).

المعز (goats) is he generic plural of الماعز (one goat). The word is applied to all animals of the class of غنم (for which see above) having hair (not wool) and small tails (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

See note under the following verse.

6:22; 7:38; 11:19.

Commentary:

Speaking of the laws devised by man, the Quran had referred to some pagan customs with regard to animals (6:140, 141). Now it gives its own laws with regard to them.

While speaking of sheep and goats in 6:144 above, the Holy Prophet is made here to ask the idolaters to inform him if these animals were unlawful, i.e. not fit for eating, and to bring forward (as hinted in the words نبٔونی بعلم i.e. inform me with knowledge) some rational argument or scientific reason to show that they should not be eaten. When, however, it speaks of oxen and camels in the present verse, the Quran asks idolaters whether they were witnesses when Allah forbade the eating of these animals. In other words, the verse here calls upon them to produce a religious authority showing that the cow and the camel were really forbidden. This is so because the cow and the camel are looked upon as forbidden by some on religious authority. For instance, the Hindus think it unlawful to eat beef for religious reasons and the Jews look upon the camel as forbidden by their scriptures.

This restriction is, however, unjustified; for, as regards beef, it is clearly allowed by the Vedas and was freely used in ancient India not only as ordinary food but also as an essential part of many religious ceremonies (Indo-Aryans by R. Mitra, LL.D., C.I.E.; The Review of Religions for 1923). As regards the camel, it is indeed forbidden by the Bible, but that prohibition is not meant for all time, for the Bible announces the advent of another Lawgiver whose Law was to abrogate the Law of the Bible (Deut. 18:18).

The words, Were you present when Allah enjoined, signify that when pagans do not believe in any revelation, they cannot possibly know that anything was forbidden by God.

5:49; 45:19.

6:2; 27:61.

Important Words:

ھلم (bring forward) is both intransitive and transitive, meaning (1) come; or (2) cause to come, i.e. bring forth or produce (Lane). ھلم (halumma) is, according to the people of the Hijaz, one of the words known as اسماء الفعل and is thus used by them in the fixed form whether the number is singular or plural and whether the gender is masculine or feminine; but others differ from this view (Aqrab).

Commentary:

The Quran now returns to the subject of man-made laws about prohibitions. The verse signifies that disbelievers should declare that they do not agree with the Quran and find its teachings inferior to their own and then God Himself will decide between the two parties. Indirectly the words also hint that everybody should express his opinion freely when he disagrees with others and should refrain from dissimulation.

4:37; 17:24.

17:32.

6:121; 7:34.

Important Words:

املاق (poverty) is derived from ملق. They say ملق الشیء i.e. he erased the thing. ملقه بالعصا means, he beat him with a stick. ملق الولد امه means, the child sucked from the breasts of his mother. املق الرجل means, the man spent all his money and became poor. املاق means, poverty or destitution (Aqrab).

Commentary:

The Quran has already given the commandments and prohibitions of the Islamic Law with regard to the fruits of the earth and the flesh of animals, in opposition to the laws devised by men. Now it gives general commandments and prohibitions.

It should be noted that the injunctions which follow the word "forbidden" are what God requires us to do, and not what He forbids us to do. Thus, it is the contrary of the injunctions given in the verse that is forbidden. The injunctions have been expressly mentioned and the converse of them which is forbidden is implied. Thus, on the one hand, by using the word "forbidden" and, on the other, by following it up with positive commandments, the verse combines in itself both the direct injunctions and their converse, and the attention of the reader has been drawn to both.

The verse may also be construed in another way. The first sentence should be taken as having finished with the words ما حرم ربکم i.e. what your Lord has forbidden, and the next sentence should be taken as beginning with the words علیکمwhich would in this case mean, "it is enjoined upon you or it is incumbent on you." The verse will then read as follows:"Come, I will rehearse to you what your Lord has forbidden. It is incumbent on you that you associate not anything as partner with Him…"

The order in which the injunctions are given in this verse is noteworthy. The injunctions begin with the words, Come, I will rehearse to you what your Lord has forbidden. The Arabic word for "Lord" is رب which means "Creator, Sustainer, and Nourisher" (see 1:2), and it is the very idea of "sustaining and nourishing" that governs the order of the injunctions here given. The first injunction, i.e. associate not anything as partner with Him, pertains to the Great Nourisher, Allah. The second injunction pertains to the lesser nourishers, viz. parents. The word احسان (doing good) expresses the idea that the service of the parents enjoined in the words, do good to parents, is to be performed in the best way possible, for احسان literally signifies "doing a thing very well." Next come those who are nourished and sustained by the "lesser nourishers", viz. children. Parents are bidden to nourish and bring up their children well, as implied in the words, kill not your children for fear of poverty. Indeed, he who neglects to bring up his children properly for fear of poverty virtually "kills" them. If it is the duty of the children to serve their parents well, it is equally the duty of the parents to bring up their children well.

The pronoun "you" in the clause, it is We Who provide for you and for them, refers to parents and the pronoun "them" refers to children, the former being put before the latter in order to draw our attention to the fact that God’s providing for the parents is a proof of the fact that He will also provide for the children.

The next injunction is contained in the words, approach not foul deeds. The word فواحش (foul deeds) is the plural of فاحشه one meaning of which is "fornication or adultery" (see 4:16), which is another form of killing one’s children; for the man who forms immoral connection with a woman other than his wife, not only destroys his seed but also neglects his own wife, which cannot but affect his begetting children in lawful wedlock. Similarly, illegitimate children born of a woman other than one’s wife are not one’s own children, nor are they properly looked after.

The words, whether open or secret, used in connection with فواحش (foul deeds) refer respectively to openly going in to prostitutes and to forming secret connections with women other than one’s wife.

Next to the relations between parents and children come brotherly and friendly relations which are referred to in the words, kill not the life which Allah has made sacred. This injunction requires us to treat our brethren and friends as well as members of our society with fairness and justice. The word "killing," it will be noted, pertains not only to actually killing but to an attempt at killing as well as causing serious injury and boycotting etc. (see meaning of قتل i.e. killing under 2:62; 3:155 & 4:158). The expression, save by right, used with regard to "killing" means "except when a man has made himself deserving of the treatment to be meted out to him." For instance, in case of murder a person will be put to death only by order of proper authority. Similarly, in case of "boycotting" a person will be boycotted only under the orders of the person or the body that possesses that power. It will not be right for any man to take the law in his own hands.

2:169,173; 23:52.

Commentary:

Islam being not a religion of monasticism, the verse implies a rebuke for those who forbid the use of pure and good things.

The good and pure things of God’s provision, which are really meant for, and deserved by, believers only are also shared by disbelievers in this life; but in the life to come they will be enjoyed by believers only, to the exclusion of disbelievers.

6:152.

3:152; 7:72; 22:72.

Commentary:

The verse draws our attention to the purity of Divine teachings by pointing out that all evil things are forbidden by Islam. But at the same time it reminds the reader that there are certain things the evil of which is generally hidden from men. These, too, are forbidden and most of them have been mentioned by the Holy Prophet.

The verse next proceeds to explain what it means by فواحش (foul deeds). It divides them into three classes: (1) اثم (the sin of disobedience or of falling short in the performance of a duty), and بغی (transgression, i.e. exceeding the proper bounds); (2) شرك (associating with God that for which He has sent down no authority). The فواحش (foul deeds) of this class mean idolatrous beliefs and polytheistic ideals. (3) "That you say against Allah what you do not know." By the فواحش of this class are meant the false and evil words we utter. Thus we are enjoined to be pure not only in thought but also in word and deed.

2:191.

Important Words:

جزیة (tax) is derived from جزی meaning, he or it paid or gave satisfaction. They say, جزیت فلانا حقه i.e. I paid such a one his right or due. جزاہ کذا means, he repaid, requited, or recompensed him for such a thing. جزیة means, the tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim State in lieu of the protection it ensures them (Lane & Aqrab).

ید (hand) also means favour. See 5:65.

صاغرون (acknowledge their subjection) is the plural of صاغرwhich is derived from صغرwhich means, he was or became small or little in body or in years or in estimation or in rank or dignity (Lane). صاغر which is the active participle from صغرsignifies, one who agrees, and is satisfied, to occupy or remain in a subordinate position (Mufradat).

Commentary:

War with idolaters having been dealt with in previous verses, fighting with the People of the Book is introduced with this verse. The verse refers to those People of the Book who lived in Arabia. Like the idolaters of that country, they too had been actively hostile to Islam and had tried to exterminate it. Muslims were, therefore, ordered to fight them unless they agreed to live as their loyal and peaceful subjects. The Jizyah, referred to in the verse, was the tax which such non-Muslims had to pay as free subjects of the Muslim State in return for the protection they enjoyed under it. Islam has ordained that in Arabia, the birthplace of Islam and its headquarters, only the People of the Book, and not idolaters, could live as subjects by paying the Jizyah, while outside Arabia all non-Muslims could live under a Muslim government on payment of this tax. Arabia, being the cradle and centre of Islam and, as it were, the citadel thereof, was to be kept free from idolaters. It should also be noted that as against Jizyah which was imposed on non-Muslims, the tax imposed on Muslims is called Zakah which is a heavier tax than Jizyah, and Muslims, in addition to this tax, had to perform military service which was very hard in those days and from which non-Muslims were exempt. Thus the latter in a way fared better, for they had to pay a lighter tax and were also free from military service.

The expression عن ید (with their own hand) is used here in a figurative sense, signifying (1) that Jizyah should not be forcibly taken from the People of the Book but that they should pay it with their own hand, i.e. they should agree to pay it willingly and should acknowledge the superior power of the Muslims; or (2) that they should pay it out of hand, i.e. in ready money and not in the form of deferred payment; or (3) that they should pay it considering it as a favour from Muslims, the word, ید (hand) also meaning a favour.

The word صاغرون (acknowledge their subjection) is used here to express the subordinate political status of non-Muslims, i.e. they were to occupy the position of subjects in relation to Muslims. As regards the social relations of Muslims with the dhimmis, as non-Muslim subjects of the Muslim State were called, these may be judged from the fact that the Holy Prophet himself used to stand up in reverence when the bier of a non-Muslim happened to pass by him (Dawud, ch. on Jana’iz), and ‘Ali, the Fourth Caliph, bore on his own shoulders the bier of a Christian who happened to die in the time of his Caliphate.

6:44; 13:34; 16:64; 27:25; 29:49; 35:9.

Important Words:

النسیء (the postponement) is the noun-substantive from نسأ meaning, he postponed or delayed a thing. They say انسأ اللّٰه اجلهi.e. God postponed the end of his life, viz. He prolonged his life. An Arab would say بایعه بنسیئة i.e. he sold it on credit, i.e. the payment was to be made at a future period. نسی therefore means, postponement; or the postponement of a month, i.e. the transfer of the sanctity of one month to a later month, a custom of the Arabs in their days of ignorance; the month which the Arabs so postponed; the postponement of the time of Pilgrimage, another custom of the Arabs; a postponement of the time of payment of a debt or of the price of a thing sold (Lane & Aqrab).

لیواطئوا (that they may agree in) is derived from واطا which is again derived from وطئی meaning, he trod upon it; he trampledupon it. They say, واطاہ علی الامر i.e. he agreed with him respecting the matter. تواطا القوم علی الامر means the people agreed with each other respecting the affair (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The reference in this verse, as shown under Important Words, is to a long-standing Arab custom. The three successive sacred months of Dhul-Qa‘dah, Dhul-Hijjah, and Muharram sometimes seemed to them too long a time to refrain from their predatory expeditions. In order, therefore, to free themselves from the restrictions of the sacred months, they sometimes treated a sacred month as an ordinary month and an ordinary month as sacred. This practice is denounced here because it involved fraud and interfered with the security of life guaranteed in these months. The procedure adopted for postponing the observance of a sacred month was generally something like this. When in the month of Dhul-Hijjah, the pilgrims returned from Mina, after having performed the ceremonies of Hajj, an influential man would arise from among the assembly and, according to Arab custom, would say, "I am he whose decree is not to be rejected." Thereupon, the assembly would request him to transfer the sanctity of the next month of Muharram to the following month (Safar). Thus, the sanctity of a month which God had made inviolable was violated with impunity. This artifice, however, was not resorted to every year, but only when it suited their interests or convenience, The Quran has condemned it as an impious innovation, and as evidence of the untrustworthiness of the pagan Arabs, implying that as they could not keep the ordinances of God, they could not be expected to remain true to their engagements with Muslims.

2:174; 5:4; 6:146.

Commentary:

See notes on vv. 2:169,174; 5:4; 6:119,120 & 146.

6:152; 25:69.

Commentary:

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

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

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

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

6:152; 17:33, 34.

Important Words:

أثاماً (punishment of sin) is infinitive noun from أثم which means, he fell into or committed a sin or crime: he did what was unlawful. أثام means, the requital or recompense of a sin or crime or punishment thereof (Lane).

Commentary:

The verse deals with the three basic sins, i.e. idolatry, murder and adultery, the fountainheads of individual depravity and social and sexual immorality. The Quran has reverted to these three sins again and again.