ٱعْتَدَ

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.

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.

See 2:179.

Important Words:

الشھرالحرام (Sacred Month). From the earliest pre-Islamic times, four out of the twelve lunar months have been regarded as sacred (9:36) in which fighting, etc., was held to be unlawful and people travelled in perfect peace and security. They were (1) Dhul-Qa‘dah, (2) Dhul-Hijjah, (3) Al-Muharram, and (4) Rajab, the first named three months occurring consecutively and the last separately. As حج (Pilgrimage) was performed in Dhul-Hijjah, the three consecutive months served as a safe period for travelling for the purposes of Pilgrimage, both for the inward and the outward journey. The month of Rajab was generally meant for عمرة (the Lesser Pilgrimage). The system was pre-Islamic not in the sense that it had its origin in pagan Arabia but in the sense that it came in vogue along with the institution of Pilgrimage established by Abraham under the commandment of God (22:27, 28). As Islam retained the institution of حج it naturally upheld the sanctity of the Sacred Months as well. Even warring tribes desisted from fighting at the approach of a Sacred Month when all bloodshed vanished from the land (Bukhari, Qastalani, Zurqani & Taj).

The words فاعتدوا علیه (punish him for his transgression) literally mean, "transgress against him", but as one who retaliates against the transgression of a party does not really transgress but simply punishes the transgression of the aggressor, the words have been rightly translated as punish him for his transgression. This is quite in accordance with the Arabic idiom; for, as shown under 2:16, the Arabs generally repeat the very word used for expressing the wrongdoing of a party to signify the punishment thereof.

Commentary:

The verse embodies an important principle. If, in fighting, the sanctity of a Sacred Month is violated by some tribe hostile to Islam, Muslims are not to sit hand-bound and allow the aggressors to victimize them. They should retaliate; for in such retaliation lies the very safeguarding of the sanctity of a sacred thing; otherwise, the enemy would be unduly encouraged and would be all the more emboldened to commit such sacrileges.

But as fighting in a Sacred Month is a dangerous thing (2:218) and as the punishment of an act of transgression is also likely to exceed proper limits and a slight error of judgement on the part of Muslims might make them sinful in the sight of God, the latter part of the verse suitably warns them to fear God and always remain within proper bounds; for, Allah is with those who fear Him.

57:26.

Commentary:

As hunting is ordinarily done in a jungle where one is generally alone and where there is none beside God to observe one’s breaking Divine commandments, the verse fittingly mentions hunting to illustrate تقوی or God-fearingness. While engaged in hunting, man’s abstention from violating Divine commandments would show that he has really done so out of the fear of God. It is thus that, by an outward act, the inner condition of a man’s heart may become revealed.

The verse also serves as an introduction to the commandment that follows in the next verse and prepares believers for the acceptance of an injunction which ran counter to the prevalent practice.

Important Words:

اَولیان (the two who were in a better position) is derived from ولی being the dual of اولی which means, one more worthy or more competent or more entitled or more deserving or better fitted or having a better claim to do a thing, etc. (Lane). See also 4:136.

استحقااثما (the two are guilty of sin) and استحق علیھم (against whom they sinfully deposed). The word استحق is derived from حقwhich means, it was or became suitable to the requirements of wisdom, justice, right and truth; it was or became right, proper, correct or true; it became established as a truth. استحقه means, he demanded it as his right or due; he had a right or title or claim to it; he deserved or merited it. They say استحق اثما i.e. he did what necessitated sin; or he was guilty of a sin and deserved it being said of him that he was a sinner. The expression علیھم added the word استحق means "against them", the particle علی sometimes meaning "against". استحقھا علی المشتری means, he has a right to it in preference to the purchaser, i.e. he has a better claim to it as against the buyer. The words استحق علیھم therefore, would mean, they (the two witnesses who were in a better position to give true evidence) gave false evidence against their just rights, seeking to deprive them (heirs of the deceased) of their rights by giving false evidence against them.

Commentary:

See collective note on 5:109.