Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

CHAPTER 5, VERSES 27-32

وَاتْلُ عَلَيْهِمْ نَبَأَ ابْنَيْ آدَمَ بِالْحَقِّ إِذْ قَرَّبَا قُرْبَانًا فَتُقُبِّلَ مِنْ أَحَدِهِمَا وَلَمْ يُتَقَبَّلْ مِنَ الْآخَرِ قَالَ لَأَقْتُلَنَّكَۖ قَالَ إِنَّمَا يَتَقَبَّلُ اللَّـهُ مِنَ الْمُتَّقِينَ ﴿٢٧﴾ لَئِن بَسَطتَ إِلَيَّ يَدَكَ لِتَقْتُلَنِي مَا أَنَا بِبَاسِطٍ يَدِيَ إِلَيْكَ لِأَقْتُلَكَۖ إِنِّي أَخَافُ اللَّـهَ رَبَّ الْعَالَمِينَ ﴿٢٨﴾ إِنِّي أُرِيدُ أَن تَبُوءَ بِإِثْمِي وَإِثْمِكَ فَتَكُونَ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ النَّارِۚ وَذَٰلِكَ جَزَاءُ الظَّالِمِينَ ﴿٢٩﴾ فَطَوَّعَتْ لَهُ نَفْسُهُ قَتْلَ أَخِيهِ فَقَتَلَهُ فَأَصْبَحَ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ ﴿٣٠﴾ فَبَعَثَ اللَّـهُ غُرَابًا يَبْحَثُ فِي الْأَرْضِ لِيُرِيَهُ كَيْفَ يُوَارِي سَوْءَةَ أَخِيهِۚ قَالَ يَا وَيْلَتَىٰ أَعَجَزْتُ أَنْ أَكُونَ مِثْلَ هَـٰذَا الْغُرَابِ فَأُوَارِيَ سَوْءَةَ أَخِيۖ فَأَصْبَحَ مِنَ النَّادِمِينَ ﴿٣١﴾ مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَٰلِكَ كَتَبْنَا عَلَىٰ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَنَّهُ مَن قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعًاۚ وَلَقَدْ جَاءَتْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِّنْهُم بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ فِي الْأَرْضِ لَمُسْرِفُونَ ﴿٣٢﴾

And relate to them the story of the two sons of Adam with truth when they both offered an offering, but it was accepted from one of them and was not accepted from the other. He said: “I will most certainly slay you.” (The other) said: “Allãh only accepts from those who are pious (27). If you will stretch forth your hand towards me to slay me, I am not one to stretch forth my hand towards you to slay you; surely I fear Allãh, the Lord of the worlds (28). Surely I wish that you should bear my sin as well as your own sin, and so you would be of the inmates of the Fire, and this is the recompense of the unjust.” (29). Then his mind facilitated to him the slaying of his brother, so he slew him; then he became one of the losers (30). Then Allãh sent a crow digging up the earth so that he might show him how he should cover the dead body of his brother. He said: “Woe me! Do I lack the strength that I should be like this crow and cover the dead body of my brother?” So he became of those who regret (31). For this reason did We prescribe to the Children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear proofs, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land (32).

* * * * *

COMMENTARY

The verses describe the story of the two sons of Adam, and make it clear that envy sometimes drives son of Adam to a stage where he slays his brother unjustly, then he becomes a loser and he regrets when no remorse can do any good. In this sense, the verses are conjoined with preceding ones, which describe how the Children of Israel had an aversion to believing in the Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.a.); their rejection of the true call had no reason except envy and transgression. Thus does envy pushes man to slaughter of his brother, then throws him in a remorse and regret from which he can never be free; so they should take lesson from this story, and should not persist so much in envy and then disbelief.

QUR’ÃN: And relate to them the story of the two sons of Adam with truth . “Allãh only accepts from those who are pious: Watlu (وَاتْلُ = translated here as: “And relate”) has its root in at-tilãwah (اَلتِلاَوَة = to read, to recite), which in its turn is derived from at-tulūw (اَلتُلُو = to follow); because a relater describes a news or story in stages one after another; an-nabã’ (اَلنَبَاء = news which has some benefit); al-qurbãn ( اَلْقُرْبَانُ = offering with which one wants to come nearer to God or someone else), it is an infinitive verb/grund, it has no dual or plural form; at-taqabbul (اَلتَقَبُّلْ = to accept with more care accorded to the accepted thing). The pronoun, “them”, (in, “relate to them”) refers to the People of the Book, because the speech concerns them.

“Adam” refers to the same person whomQur’ãn introduces as the progenitor of the mankind. An exegete has said, “It refers to an Israelite who had two sons who quarrelled regarding an offering, and one of them, called Qãbīl (Cain), killed Hãbil (Abel); and that is why Allãh says at the end of the story: For this reason did We prescribe to the Children of Israel . .” But it is wrong, because:

First: Qur’ãn has nowhere mentioned any other Adam except the one who was the progenitor of mankind. If someone else were the subject of this verse, it was necessary to place here some indication, in order to remove any confusion.

Second: Some details of the story, e.g., sending of a crow, con-forms with the condition of the primitive man who possessed simple thoughts and unelaborate perceptions, who gradually went on accu-mulating informations through experiences which he got from inci-dent to incident. The verse clearly shows that the killer did not even know that a dead body could be covered in the earth. Obviously, this characteristic fits on the son of Adam, the progenitor of mankind, not on a person from the Children of Israel, who were civilized, advanced, and nationally refined in culture; and such matters could not be unknown to them.

Third: This exegete, by saying that “and that is why Allãh says at the end of the story: For this reason didWe prescribe to the Children of Israel”, wants to reply to a question levelled against the verse. That question says: “Why the said prescription was reserved particularly to the Children of Israel, while the moral of the story covers the whole humanity -that whoever kills a person it is as though he killed all men, and whoever kept alive one person it is as though he kept alive all men.”

So the said exegete tried to reply that the killer and the killed were not sons of Adam who was progenitor of mankind, and this story was not among the initial events taking place at the dawn of humanity, so that it could provide a lesson to all succeeding generations. Rather this event had concerned two sons of an Israelite, and the story describes an Israeli incident, which had a particularly national character; and that is why its lesson was especially confined to the Children of Israel.

However, this reply does not settle the argument; the question even now remains unanswered. The principle that killing one man is tantamount to killing all men and keeping one person alive is like keeping all men alive, is applicable to all killings taking place in human species; it is not reserved to any particular killing; and innu-merable murders had taken place before the era of Israelites and even in Israelites before the one mentioned in this verse. Then why was this principle enunciated from this particular murder? And why was it confined to a particular nation?

Moreover, if the matter were as he says, it was better tosay, . . that whoever “among you” slays a soul, so that it would have been reserved for them, and in that case the same question would arise as to that reservation; and the notion in itself was not sound.

The reply to original question is as follows: The words: who-ever slays a soul . it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men, do not enact a legislative order; they enunciate a deep principle. Therefore, the pre-scription to the Children of Israel denotes that this principle was explained to them, although its benefit was comprehensive and covered Israelites and non-Israelites both. It is not unlike the admon-itions and wisdom theQur’ãn explains to the ummah of Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) although their benefits are not confined to it.

Why does this verse say that this maxim was prescribed to the Israelites? It is because the verses are concerned with admonishing them, reminding them and rebuking them for their envy and jealousy against the Prophet (s.a.w.a.); their intense hatred of the Prophet led them to fanning the fire of mischief, instigating others to fight the Muslims and active participation in many such wars. That is why this speech is followed by the words: and certainlyOur messengers came to them with clear proofs, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.

Add to all this factthat the story as mentioned by that exegete has no basis at all - neither in tradition nor in history .

Now, it is clear that “the story of the two sons of Adam” is related to the sons of that Adam who was the Father of mankind. The clause: “with truth” is related either to “the story” or to “relate”; in either case it is a notice or declaration that the story as was prevalent in their society was not free from distortion and omission. Actually the story as presented in the Genesis (ch.4) does not mention the event of the crow and its digging up the earth; also it clearly presents God as having a body - Far exalted be He from such things!

The context of the clause: “when they both offered an offering, but it was accepted from one of them and was not accepted from the other”, obviously shows that each of the two had offered an offering to Allãh; but the word, al-qurbãn (اَلْقُرْبَانُ = offering) was used in singular number, because, as mentioned earlier, it being a masdar, does not accept dual or plural form.

The clauses: “He said: 'I will most certainly slay you.' He (the other) said: 'Allãh only accepts from those who are pious.'“ The first speaker is the killer and the second, the killed one. It shows that they both knew that the offering of one was accepted and of the other rejected. But the verse does not say as to how they came to know it or which evidence led them to that deduction.

However, theQur’ãn in another place mentions that among the ancient nations, or particularly among the Israelites, customarily the acceptance of an offering was known through its consumption by fire. Allãh says: (Those are they) who said: “Surely Allãh has enjoined us that we should not believe in any messenger until he brings us an offering which the fire consumes.” Say: “Indeed, there came to you messengers before me with clear proofs and with that which you said; why then did you kill them if you are truthful?” (3:183).

Offerings are well known among the People of the Book till today.27 Possibly in this case too the same method was used to indicate the offering's acceptance - especially keeping in view that the story was narrated to the People of the Book who believed in that method. Be it as it may, the killer and his victim both knew that the one's offering was accepted and that of the other rejected.

Obviously, the one who said,“ 'I will most certainly slay you,' “ was that brother whose offering was not accepted; and he thus spoke only because of envy and jealousy, as there was no other reason, nor the victim had committed any crime by his own will and power so that he should be confronted with such talk and threatened to be murdered.

The killer threatened:“ 'I will most certainly slay you,' “ merely because of envy that the victim's offering was accepted and the killer's rejected. The victim replied:“ 'Allãh only accepts from those who are pious. If you will stretch forth your hand towards me to slay me, I am not one to stretch forth my hand towards you to slay you; surely I fear Allãh, the Lord of the worlds.'“ By this reply he made it clear that:

First: He (the victim) had nothing to do with the acceptance or non-acceptance of any offering, nor had he committed any crime. If anyone was to be blamed, it was the killer who did not fear Allãh, and consequently Allãh refused to accept his offering.

Second: If the killer wanted to kill him and stretched his hand toward the victim for that purpose, the victim was not going to stretch his hand towards him with intention of killing him. Why?Because of his piety and fear of Allãh. In this situation, the killer would return (in the next world) with the victim's sin and his own, so that he would be among the inmates of the Fire, and that is the recompense of the unjust.

“Allãh only accepts from those who are pious.” It asserts that acceptance is reserved only for the offering of the pious - it excludes that of unpious. Or, perhaps the killer arrogantly or ignorantly was thinking that his own offering would be accepted and that of the victim rejected - thinking that it does not depend on piety; or that Allãh did not know the real position and probably He would be confused as human beings become sometimes; therefore it was established that the killer's offering was not acceptable at all.

This episode contains many important principles: It describes how and when acts of worship and offerings are accepted; admon-ishes about murder, injustice and envy emphasizing their seriousness; confirms the system of divine retribution and shows that it is an integral part of the Lordship of the Lord of the worlds, for, Lordship cannot be complete without a well organized system interlinking various parts of the world, which would lead to just evaluation of deeds, and would recompense injustice with painful chastisement; so that the oppressor should desist from oppression, or should receive the retribution which he had arranged for himself, and that is the Fire.

QUR’ÃN: “If you will stretch forth your hand towards me to slay me, I am not one to stretch my hand towards you to slay you; surely I fear Allãh, the Lord of the worlds: The preposition, “l” (ل ) in lain (لَئِنْ = if) is for oath; stretching forth the hand alludes to preparing for murder and making its arrangements; the reply to this conditional clause begins with a negative connected to a nominal clause: “not one to stretch my hand” - in original Arabic, it is not a verb but an adjective, the negative is strengthened with 'bi' (بِ ) and the whole speech with the earlier mentioned oath. All these devices were used to show that the victim was far-removed from intention of killing his brother; such thought had never come to his mind.

This claim of his innocence is emphasized by the clause:“ 'surely I fear Allãh, the Lord of the worlds.' “ When the pious ones, those who fear Allãh, remember their Lord, Allãh, the Lord of the worlds, Who, they know, recompenses every sin with its prescribed punishment, the fear of Allãh is awakened in them, and it does not allow them to commit any injustice which would throw them into perdition.

Then comes the reality of this sentence:“ 'If you will stretch forth your hand towards me . .' “, and its true interpretation. In short, the events had reached a point where the victim had only two alter-natives before him: Either he should kill his brother or his brother kills him; if he opts for the first alternative then he would become unjust oppressor, would carry sins of both on his shoulders and would enter the Fire; if on the other hand his unjust brother kills him all the above consequences would come to that brother. Obviously, the victim did not opt for the first alternative because in that case his own felicity would be jeopardized; he rather opted for the second alternative - that his unjust brother should suffer infelicity by killing him while he himself attains felicity without being unjust or oppressor. Thus, in the clause:“ 'Surely I wish that you should bear my sin . .' “, the word, “wish”, denotes option in case of there being two alternatives.

This verse gives the interpretation of the clause: “ 'If you will stretch forth your hand . .' “ in the same way as had happened in the story of Mūsã (a.s.) and his companion when the latter had killed a boy they had met; Mūsã (a.s.) objected saying: “Have you slain an innocent person otherwise than for manslaughter?Certainly you have done a horrible thing” (18:74). His companion later gave him its interpretation in these words: “And as for the boy, his parents were believers and we feared lest he should oppress them by disobedience (to them) and disbelief (in God). So we desired that their Lord might give them in his place one better than him in purity and nearer to having compassion” (18:80-81).

Likewise, in this case, the victim “wished” i.e. he opted for death joined with his felicity even if it resulted in his brother's infel-icity as he had wrongly preferred life joined with infelicity which pushed him into the band of oppressors; exactly as the companion of Mūsã (a.s.) preferred the boy's death in felicity (although it would cause grief and sorrow to his parents) over his continued life which would make him oppressor and disbeliever who would go astray and lead his parents into error; and he desired that Allãh would give them in his place another boy better than him in purity and nearer to having compassion.

The son of Adam who was murdered was pious and God fearing and had gnosis of Allãh. His piety is shown in his reply:“ 'Allãh only accepts from those who are pious.'“ It contains the claim of his own piety, and Allãh has quoted it without rebutting it. As for his knowledge and gnosis, it is inferred from his speech,“ 'surely I fear Allãh, the Lord of the worlds.'“ Here he openly claims that he feared God, and Allãh has again quoted him without rebuttal; and Allãh says in another place: . verily fear Allãh only those of His servants endued with knowledge . (35:28). So when Allãh endorsed his claim that he feared Allãh, it was as though He also confirmed that he was a man of knowledge, as He has also portrayed the Mūsã (a.s.)'s com-panion as a knowledgeable person and said: . and whom We had taught knowledge from Ourselves (18:65). The victim's talk with his unjust brother is enough to show the extent of his knowledge; you will find in it deep sagacity, wisdom and good sermon. He showed with his clean disposition and pure nature that human race was bound to multiply, and their bands would contain individuals of diverse charac-ters, some would be pious, others unjust and transgressors. However, there is one LordWho is their Owner and the Owner of all the worlds and He manages their affairs. It is an aspect of His perfect manage-ment that He likes and loves justice and beneficence, dislikes and hates injustice and transgression. It follows that man must fear God and acquire piety - and this is religion. There are acts of obedience that bring man nearer to God, as there are acts of disobedience and injustice. Obedience is accepted when it springs from piety. Disobedi-ence and injustice are sins the burden of which lies on the shoulders of the sinner. All this makes it clear that there should be another life - the resurrection - where everyone would be recompensed for hisdeeds, and the recompense of unjust and oppressors is the Fire.

As you see, these are the roots of the religious gnosis, conflu-ence of the knowledge of genesis and resurrection, which this good servant of Allãh explained to his foolish brother who did not even know that a thing could be hidden from people by burying it in the earth - until he learned it from the crow. The victim, however, did not say to his threatening brother: If you want to kill me I'll throw myself before you without defending myself or repulsing your attack; he had only said: “I am not going to kill you.” Nor did he say: 'I wish to be killed by you anyhow, so that you will become an oppressor and will go to the Fire.' To cause someone to go astray and fall into disgrace is in itself an injustice and error; and it is the verdict of natural law, not confined to one sharī‘ah or the other. He only said: “If you stretch forth your hand towards me to kill me, I shall accept it and opt for it.”

Keep in mind this fine point; and then listen to this objection on this event: No doubt the killer went beyond the limit through his oppression and transgression; but the victim too fell short in his duty by not standing up to the killer and by accepting the oppression; instead of boldly facing the adversary and defending himself, he meekly submitted to the killer and said: “ 'If you will stretch forth your hand towards me to slay me, I am not one to stretch forth my hand towards you to slay you; . .' “

You will realize that this objection is baseless. He had not said, 'I shall not defend myself and shall let you do whatever you want to do with me;' he had only said, “I do not wish to kill you.” The verse does not say that he was killed and knowingly did not defend himself. May be, he was waylaid or ambushed, or was killed while defending or protecting himself.

Someone has looked at this episode in a wrong perspective, saying: The victim intended to give his brother power over himself, so that he would kill him, and thus fall into eternal perdition, while he (the victim) would get felicity and bliss, as he himself had said: “Surely I wish that you should bear my sin as well as your sin, and so you would be of the inmates of the Fire.” As in these days, some ascetics think that they should adhere to their acts of worship and denial of self; if someone oppresses him or does injustice to him, that unjust oppressor would himself bear the burden of his oppression and injustice, and the victim should not stand up to defend his right, rather he should bear it patiently hoping to get its reward from God. But it is nothing but stupidity, because it is helping the sinner in his sin, and it makes both the helper and the helped partners in sin, so it will not make the oppressor to bear the burden of sins of both alone.

However, the explanation we have written above, of the words: “Surely I wish that you should bear my sin as well as yoursin, . .” clarifies this objection.

Some people have replied to the above-mentioned two objec-tions with some absurd answers; there is no benefit in mentioning them.

QUR’ÃN: “Surely I wish that you should bear my sin as well as your own sin, and so you would be of the inmates of theFire, . .” : Tabūa (تَبُوءَ ) translated here as “bear”, literally means, stay; i.e. you should stay with my sin.ar-Rãghib has written in his Mufradãtu 'l-Qur’ãn:

“al-Bawã’ (اَلْبَوَاء ) actually means equality of parts in a place, in contrast to an-nabwah (اَلنَبْوَة ) i.e. disagreement of parts; they say: a bawwã’ (بَوَّاءُ = agreeable) place, when it is not repulsive; also they say: 'I bawwa’tu lahu (بَوَّاْتُ لَهُ = prepared for him) a place . .' And the Qu’ãn says: 'Surely I wish that you should bear with my sin as well as your own sin'; a poet has said:

“ 'I rejected her falsity and stayed with her right.' “

Therefore, its explanation with “return” looks at its inseparable connotation.

The clause:“ 'that you should bear my sin as well as your sin,' “ denotes that the sin of unjustly murdered person is transferred to his killer, thus he shall bear two sins while the victim will come to Allãh without any sin in his account. This is the apparent meaning of this clause and traditions support it; also reason justifies it. This topic has been discussed to a certain extent in the second volume of this book.28

Objection: This theory compels us to admit that a person may be held responsible for another man's sin; but reason rejects it, and Allãh has said: That no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another (53:38).

Reply: This matter is not within the purview of theoretical wisdom (so that reason could declare that it was impossible); rather it is within the jurisdiction of practical wisdom that follows the changing pattern of human social order and its exigencies. It is quite in order if the society lays the burden of one person's deed on another person, and considers the latter responsible for it; or if it decides that the deed done by a man was not done by him. For example, someone kills a man and the society had some rights upon the murdered man; now the society is justified in demanding those due rights from the killer. Likewise, if someone rebels against the society and creates disturb-ance in law, order, and mischief in the land, then the society has the right to consider all his good points as if they did not exist at all. And so on.

In the above-mentioned examples, the society looks at the bad deeds of the oppressed and puts them in the account of the oppressor. At this juncture, that bearer of burden bears the burden of the deeds which are now assigned to him - now it is not someone else's load; it is now transferred to his account because he had committed injustice to his victim, and in lieu of that injustice the victim's bad deeds have come to his door. It is not unlike a business transaction when the seller gives the goods to the buyer and accepts a price in its place; now the new owner of the goods uses it as he likes, and nobody would object to it simply because at one time it had belonged to someone else - because now the previous ownership has ceased. In the same way, the verse: That no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another, cannot prevent the killer being charged with sins that were committed by the murdered man in his life, because now they have been trans-ferred to the killer's account, and the previous responsibility of the murdered man is no more operative. It does not mean that the verse: That no bearer of burden . ., has lost its validity or effect because a new reason has caused its transfer to a new doer; it is like the hadīth, “A Muslim's property is not lawful to another except with his pleasure”; if the previous owner sells the property, he will lose all rights in it as his rights have been transferred. But no one can say that the above-mentioned hadīth has lost its validity or effect.

An exegete has written: The words: my sin as well as your own sin, mean 'the sin of my murder if you did it, and your sins which you had previously committed.' It is narrated from Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ibn ‘Abbãs and others. Another interpretation: 'the sin of my murder and your previous sin because of whichyour offering was not accepted.' It has been narrated from al-Jubbã’ī and az-Zajjãj. A third explanation: 'the sin of my murder and your sin of slaying the whole mankind.' It has been narrated from others.

But all these interpretations are devoid of support from the wordings of the Qur’ãn, and reason too does not agree with them. Moreover, if any of these interpretations were correct, there was no reason to put both sins side by side - when both were committed by the killer - and then ascribe one to the victim and the other to the killer.

QUR’ÃN: Then his mind facilitated to him the slaying of his brother, so he slew him; then he became one of the losers: ar-Rãghib says in his Mufradãtu 'l-Qur’ãn: “at-Taw‘ (اَلطَّوْعُ ) means obedience; its oppo-site is al-kurh (اَلْكُرْهُ = dislike).at-Tã‘ah (اَلطَّاعَةُ ) is synonymous to at-taw‘, but it is mostly used for obeying an order and displaying a draw-ing. The [Qur’ãnic] clause, fa-tawwa‘at lahu nafsuhu, means his mind allowed him and seduced him; tawwa‘at [طَوَّعَتْ , used in the verse] is more appropriate here than simple atã‘at (أطَاعَتْ = obeyed); the Qur’ãnic clause is opposite to ta’abbat ‘an kadhã nafsuhu (تَاَبَّتْ عَنْ كذَا نَفْسُهُ = his mind declined it).”

It does not mean that tawwa‘at includes the connotation of obedience and seduction. It actually means that at-tatwī‘ ( اَلتَّطْوِيْعُ = masdar of tawwa‘at) indicates graduality, while al-itã‘ah (اَلإْطَاعَةُ ) indicates promptness, and it is the usual difference between the stems of if‘ãl and taf‘īl. Tawwa‘at, used in the verse, therefore, implies that he was gradually pushed towards that deed through insinuations and temptations coming successively one after another, until he submitted to it and obeyed. Meaning: His mind submitted to that evil plan and he gradually succumbed to the temptation to kill his brother. The phrase:

“slaying of his brother”, stands for “the order of slaying of his brother”.

Sometimes it is said that tawwa‘at here means, 'made attractive'; in that case, slaying of his brother will be its object - that is, his mind made slaying of his brother attractive to him. Another explanation: tawwa‘at means 'his mind acceded to him in slaying of his brother'; in this case qatla (قَتْلَ ) is given the vowela in place of i because the preposition, fī (فِى = in) has been omitted.

Someone has inferred from the phrase: fa-asbaha (فَأَصْبَحَ = became one of the losers) that he had slayed his brother at night [because asbaha (أَصْبَحَ ) literally means entered upon morning]. But this is not correct, because although literally it gives this meaning, but Arabs generally use it in the meaning of “became” without looking at its root or time. Even in theQur’ãn there are several sentences where time factor is not relevant at all. For example: . so by His favour you became brethren; . (3:103). .so that they shall be regretting on account of what they hid in their souls (5:52). Hence there is no way of taking the above phrase in its literal sense.

QUR’ÃN: Then Allãh sent a crow digging up the earth so that he might show him how he should cover the dead body of his brother . .: al-Bahth (اَلْبَحْثُ = means searching for something in the earth; then it is said: 'I thoroughly searched' [i.e. made research] about this matter. This meaning is given in Majma‘u 'l-bayan.al-Muwãrãt (اَلْمُوَارَاة = to hide); from this root come at-tawãrī (اَلتَوَارِى = to hide oneself) and al-warã’ (اَلْوَرَاء = behind).as-Saw’ah (اَلسَوْأَة = what makes one annoyed, displeased); al-wayl (اَلْوَيْلُ = woe, perdition), ya waylata (يَاوَيْلَتَا = exclamatory expression used for disaster, perilous situation); al-‘ajz (اَلْعَجْزُ = weakness; opposite of power).

The context shows that the killer had spent a considerable time in bewilderment and perplexity; while he was wary lest others come to know of his deed; he could not understand what device to use in order to hide the dead body of his brother; this continued until Allãh sent the crow. If the sending of the crow and his digging the earth had occurred close together with his slaying of his brother, he would not have lamented in these words: “ 'Woe me! Do I lack the strength that I should be like this crow and cover the dead body of my brother?' “

Also it appears from the context that the crow had buried some-thing in the earth after digging it; clearly it wanted to demonstrate the method of burial, not the way of digging. Mere digging could not teach him how to bury the dead body, because he was so simple minded that he did not understand the purpose of digging; how could he go ahead from digging to burial as the two things are not con-comitant. His mind perceived the method of burial when he saw the crow digging the earth and burying something in it.

Among the birds, the crow has a habit of storing for future use a part of what he obtains through preying [or lifting away] by burying it in the earth. Although other birds which feed on grain, etc. sometimes dig the earth, but their purpose is to find out things like grain and worms, not to bury and store.

The pronoun, “he” in “so that he might show him”, stands for the crow, as it is the nearest noun. Some people have claimed that it refers to “Allãh”; this too may be correct, but it seems a bit far-fetched; however, meaning is correct in both cases.

The words: “He said: 'Woe me! Do I lack the strength that I should be like this crow' “, were uttered by the killer when he realized how easy was the method used by the crow to bury something. He found that he too was able to do as the crow had done and bury the dead body - now he had seen the connection between digging and burial. Then he felt remorse for not thinking about it himself, so that he could understand that digging the earth was the easiest means of hiding the body. So he expressed his regret: “'Woe me! Do I lack the strength that I should be like this crow and cover the dead body of my brother?'“ It was a sort of a soliloquy between him and his mind in the style of a question implying negation. It is as though he was ques-tioned - implying negation: 'Did you lack the strength to be like this crow and cover the dead body of your brother?' The reply would be: 'No.'Then he would be asked second question in the same style: 'Then why did you remain oblivious to it? Why did you not resort to this method although it was so obvious, and put yourself in such trouble without any reason for such a long period?' There was no answer to it. And this caused the remorse. Remorse is a psychological emotion, a mental agony that particularly affects a human being when he realizes that he has neglected some means, which have led to loss of a benefit or appearance of a loss. You may say that it is a feeling that affects man when he remembers that he has neglected making use of a possibility.

This is the condition of man, when he commits an injustice or oppression, which he does not want people to know about. Such deeds and behaviour are not acceptable to the society with its well-laid system whose parts are interlinked. The effects of such anti-social deeds are bound to appear before public eyes, even if they remain hidden in the beginning. The unjust criminal wants to compel the society to accept his crime, but it does not accept it at all. It is not unlike a man eating or drinking poison, wishing that his digestive system would digest it, but it does not digest it. And even if that injustice remains hidden in this life, there is a meeting place, which he cannot avoid, and your Lord is on watch. At this juncture man will know that his plans were defective and he did not properly observe what was required of him; then he will feel remorse. Even if he were given a second chance, he would damage some other parts. It would continue like that until Allãh disgraces him before the whole world.

The above discussion makes it clear that the words: “So he became of those who regret”, indicate his regret for not hiding and burying the dead body of his brother. Also it may possibly be said that the words show his regret for the slaying itself, and it is not wide of mark.

A TALK ON PERCEPTION & THOUGHT

The verse: Then Allãh sent a crow digging up the earth so that he might show him how he should cover the dead body of his brother. He said: “Woe me! Do I lack the strength that I should be like this crow and cover the dead body of my brother?” So he became of those who regret is a unique one; there is no other like it in the Qur’ãn. It portrays man's ability of benefiting from perception; that he acquires knowledge of characteristic properties of various things through per-ception, and then thinking on it arrives at its aims and objects in life. It is what has been discovered by academic research that human knowl-edge and cognition emanates from perception (or call it sensitivity), in contrast to those who believe in remembrance and natural knowledge. We may explain it as follows:

Look at a man with all his cognitive pictures - be it ideas or propositions, particular or general, whatever the characteristic of his knowledge and consciousness - you will find that he has got numer-ous pictures and a great deal of cognition, even if he be the most ignorant, and extremely weak in understanding and thinking; and no one can enumerate the pictures in his mind; in fact only Allãh knows their limit.

Although it is beyond the limit of human computation, it is seen that it goes on growing and increasing so long as the man remains alive in this world. If we retreat and go back in human life, we shall find it decreasing and decreasing until it will become cipher, and man will become like a blank slate without any knowledge. Allãh says: [Allãh] taught man what he knew not (96:5).

The above verse does not mean that Allãh taught him what he did not know; but as for the things he knew, he had no need of divine teaching. Obviously, human knowledge, of whatever type it may be, is needed to guide him to what will make his existence perfect and will benefit him in his life; the goal to which inorganic things proceed by natural laws, the organic ones - including man -proceed and are guided to it in the light of knowledge. Thus knowledge is guidance.

Allãh has ascribed guidance to Himself, as He quotes Mūsã as saying: “Our Lord is He Who gave to everything its creation,then guided.” (20:50). Again He says: AndWho made (things) according to a measure, then guided (87:3). Also He says, and in a sense it points to guidance through perception and thought: Or, Who guides you in utter darkness of the land andsea, . . (27:63).In previous volumes, we have discussed to a certain extent meaning of guidance. In short,every knowledge is guidance; and every guidance is from Allãh; therefore, whatever knowledge man has got, has come to him through divine teaching.

Also, the verse, And Allãh has brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers - you did not know anything - and He gave you the hearing and the sight and the hearts ..( 16:78), gives the connotation near to that of the verse: [Allãh] taught man what he knew not.

Contemplation of man's condition and meditation on Qur’ãnic verses show that man's theoretical knowledge, i.e. knowledge of things' characteristics and the resulting intellectual cognition, all emanate from the senses, and Allãh through it teaches him the things' characteristics, as is seen in the divine words: Then Allãh sent a crow digging up the earth so that he might show him how he should cover the dead body . .

Attribution of sending the crow for showing how the dead body should be covered is exactly the attribution of teaching the way of covering to Him. The crow did not know that it was Allãh Who had sent it; likewise, the son of Adam did not perceive that there was a planner who had arranged the matter for his thinking and learning; and the fact that apparently the crow and its digging had caused him to learn the way of burial, was merely a chance factor like all chance factors which teach man ways of his life in both worlds. However, it is Allãh Who has created mankind and led him to perfection of knowl-edge for the goal of his life. The laid down system of creation is such as makes man seek perfection through knowledge, with continuous contacts and knocks between him and various parts of creation; and by this process man learns the means of acquiring his aims and objects. It is Allãh Who sends the crow and other mediums to engage in some activity that helps man in his learnings; so He is the real teacher of man.

There are many similar expressions in the Qur’ãn. For example: . and what you have taught the beasts of prey, training them to hunt - you teach them of what Allãh has taught you . (5:4); the verse counts what they have learnt and what they teach as part of what Allãh has taught them, although they have learnt it from other people or found it out by themselves. Again: . and fear Allãh; and Allãh teachesyou, . . (2:282); but it was the Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.a.) who was teaching them. Also: . and the scribe should not refuse to write as Allãh has taught him (2:282); while the scribe had learnt the art of writing from another scribe. However, all these matters are an integral part of creation and management; and the resulting knowledge helps man in arriving at his perfection. Therefore, it is Allãh who has taught him these means of perfection, as a teacher teaches through speech and training, and a scribe teaches others through speech and pen.

This is the way of all activities, which are attributed in this world of cause-and-effect to Allãh. Allãh is their creator, and there is a chain of causes between Him and His creatures, which are apparent causes like instruments and tools, which bring a thing into existence.

You may say that these causes are conditions on which a thing's existence depends - everything is covered from all sides by these causes. Zayd comes into this world; he is son of ‘Amr and Hind. Now, ‘Amr and Hind should have been born long before Zayd, and they should have united in marriage; only then the said Zayd could be born. Likewise, for seeing through a seeing eye, there should be a seeing eye before the sight.

Some people think that belief in oneness of God (monotheism) demands that one should totally negate chain of causes; only then one can establish God's absolute power and dismiss the idea of any weak-ness in him. They say that the idea of necessity of intermediary causes is tantamount to saying that Allãh is compelled to use a particular way for creating things and has no free will or power. However, those people have inadvertently contradicted themselves.

In short, it is Allãh Who has taught human beings character-istics of the things which are perceived by their senses; He has taught them through the senses; then made all that is in the earth and the sky subservient to them; He says: And He has made subservient to you whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth, all, from Himself; . (45:13)

This subjugation has a purpose behind it: Man by managing these things reaches his goals and attains to his wishes in life. Allãh has made them connected to his existence so that he may benefit from them. The Creator has bestowed on man the faculty of contemplation in order that he may understand how to manage and use them, how to proceed ahead through them. The following verses points to this reality: Do you not see that Allãh has made subservient to you whatso-everis in the earth and the ships running in the sea by His command? . (22:65). .and made for you of the ships and the cattle what you ride on (43:12). .and upon them [the cattle] and upon the ships you are borne (40:80). There are many verses of similar connotation. Look at their language, how they ascribe making of ships to Allãh, while they are manufactured by man; how they attribute carrying of man to Allãh, while it is done by the ships and the cattle; how they assign the ships' movement to His order, while it takes place because of the flow of the river, winds or steam, etc. All these phenomena have been described as God's subjugating them to man, because his will has some control on ships, cattle and in the earth and sky which pulls them to the desired goal.

In short, Allãh has given man thinking power over the senses, so that he may use it as a means to reach the perfection appointed for him; he is helped by his intellectual cognition covering the creation, in other words, the theoretical knowledge.

Allãh says: . and He gave you the hearing and the sight and the hearts that you may give thanks. (16:78)

As for the knowledge related to action, which guides man to what is to be done and what not to be done, it comes to man through divine inspiration [or call it, instinct] without the agency of the senses or theoretical intellect. Allãh says: And [I swear by] the soul and Him Who made it perfect, then He inspired it to understand what is wrong for it and right for it; he will indeed be successful who purifies it, and he will indeed fail who corrupts it (91:7-10). Then set your face upright for religion in natural devotion (to the truth), the nature made by Allãh in which He has made men; there is no altering of Allãh's creation; that is the right religion, . (30:30). In these verses Allãh ascribes the knowledge of what should be done (i.e. good deed) and what should not be done (i.e. evil deed) to divine inspiration; and it is what is thrown into the heart.

So, whatever knowledge is gained by man is a divine guidance and through divine guidance. However, there is difference among various types of knowledge: (i) As for the characteristics of things found outside human mind, Allãh gives him their knowledge through the five senses; (ii) The general comprehensive intellectual knowledge is given by Allãh and through His subjugation; the senses do not inter-fere in it, nor can man be able to dispense with it; (iii) The knowledge related to action, which is related to good or evil deed, and decides what is good for it and what is bad; this comes from divine inspira-tion, thrown into the heart, knocking on the nature's door.

This third type of knowledge, which in fact emanates from divine inspiration, can only succeed in doing its work and complete its effect if the second type is in order and has grown up with health and uprightness; as even intellect can only do its work properly if man is upright and firm in piety and on the natural religion. Allãh says: . and none do mind except those having understanding (3:7). .and none minds but he who turns (to Allãh) again and again (40:13). And We will turn their hearts and their sights, even as they did not believe in it the firsttime, . . (6:110). And who turns away from the religion of Ibrãhīm but he who makes himself afool, . . (2:130). That is, none discards the demands of nature except he whose understanding is defective, and therefore he treads on a wrong path.

Reason supports this concomitance between understanding and piety. If man's theoretical power becomes defective, and he does not perceive truth as truth or falsehood as falsehood, then how can he be inspired to adhere to that or avoid this? Look at someone who believes that there is no life after this world's life; obviously he would not be inspired to observe religious piety which is the best provision for the life hereafter.

Likewise, if a man's natural religion is perverted, and he does not acquire the provision of religious piety, then his inner powers which give rise to desire or anger, love or hate, etc. cannot remain moderate; and when these powers' balance is disturbed, the power of theoretical perception cannot discharge its functions properly.

As the Qur’ãnic statements aim at spreading the religious cog-nition and teaching the people useful knowledge, they tread the same path and stick to the above methods which it has prescribed for acquiring knowledge: (i) If the matter concerns particular items which have perceivable characteristics, it clearly appeals to the senses; for example, verses which contain phrases like, “have you not seen”, “do they not see”, “have you seen”,”do you not then see?” (ii) If the topic covers rational generality - whether it is related to general physical matters, or is beyond this phenomenal world - then it pays full regard to understanding and reason, although it is beyond the jurisdiction of the senses and outside the circle of matter and materials. For example, most of the verses related to genesis and resurrection, which contain phrases like, “for a people who understand”, “for a people who reflect”, “for a people who remember, “for a people who understand”, etc. (iii) As for practical propositions which touch upon good and evil, profit and loss in deed, or piety and impiety, they rely on divine inspiration and describe the things which make the person remember his inner inspiration; like the verses which contain such phrases as, “it is better for you”, “his heart is surely sinful”, “in both of them there is a great sin”, “and sin and rebellion without justice”, “surely Allãh does not guide”, etc. You should meditate on them.

Now, it is clear that theQur’ãn demonstrates the error of ma-terialists - those who rely on sense and experiment alone and reject pure rational propositions in practical matters. We know that the first concern of the Qur’ãn is the topic of monotheism, and it is on founda-tion of monotheism that it builds all true cognition, which it explains and invites people to. There is no need to remind that monotheism is a topic which is the furthest removed from the senses, has the least connection with matter and is deeply related to the pure rational affair.

TheQur’ãn explains that this true cognition is a part of nature and creation. Allãh says: Then set your face upright for religion in natural devotion (to the truth), the nature made by Allãh in which He has made men; there is no altering of Allãh's creation . (30:30).

It means that human creation is such an origination as it results in these perceptions and cognition. What does alteration of a creation imply? That alteration itself would be another creation and origina-tion. But if altering of general creation is taken to mean negation of actual function then it is beyond comprehension. Far be it from him to negate his natural knowledge and to tread in life on a totally different path. Those who deviate from natural orders do not negate the dictate of nature; they rather use it in a wrong way. Sometimes an archer misses the target; now the bow and arrow as well as other conditions of shooting are originally made and laid down for hitting the target, but mistake in using throws it into error. If knives, saws, augers, needles, and other such things are fitted wrongly in their machines, they will perform the same functions for which they have been made but in an undesired way. However, it will be impossible for them to deviate from their natural function anddo some other work , e.g. a saw cannot do the work of needle by sewing clothes, and so on.

The above matters are clear for him who thinks over general arguments offered by those who oppose rational proofs. For example, they say: 'Pure rational proofs and syllogisms composed of such premises which are not based on perceptions of five senses, often throw one into error. Look, for instance, at irreconcilable disputes in pure rational matters. Therefore, one should not rely on them because they do not reassure mind.'

Also they argue for correctness of the way of senses and experi-ments in the following manner: Obviously, the senses are the tools through which we acquire the knowledge of the characteristics of various things. When we perceive a thing's effect in the framework of some particular conditions, and observe the same effects repeatedly appearing with the same conditions - without fail and without any dis-crepancy - then we become sure that the said effect was the charac-teristic of the said thing and that it was not merely a matter of chance, because chance is not a permanent phenomenon.

Both these arguments have been offered to prove that one should compulsorily depend on perception and experiment, and should discard pure rational methods. But it is amusing to note that all the premises used therein are rational and outside the purview of perception and ex-periment. These people have used these rational premises for rebutting the use of these very premises. That is what we have earlier said that nature cannot be negated, although man errs in its use.

And more abominable than that is the use of experiment and test in evaluation of legislated rules and enacted laws; a law is made and enforced in public with the aim of testing its effect through stat-istics, etc.; if good results get the upper hand, the law is confirmed as a permanent one, otherwise it is set aside and replaced by another, and so on. The same is the case of making a law through analogy or discretional liking.29

TheQur’ãn negates all the above methods and proves that the laid down laws are natural and clear; general piety and impiety are academic and based on inspiration; and their details should be learnt from the side of revelation. Allãh says: And pursue not that of which you have not the knowledge; . (17:36); and do not follow the foot-steps of the Satan . (2:168). It names the laid downsharī‘ah as truth: . and He sent down with them the book with truth, so that it might judge between people in that in which they had differed; . (2:213). .and surely conjecture does not avail against the truth at all (53:28). How can conjecture avail when by following it one puts oneself in danger of falling into untruth which is error? Allãh says: . and what is there after the truth but error; . (10:32) . yet surely Allãh does not guide him who leadsastray, . . (16:37). In other words, error cannot be a way to lead man to good and felicity. Who-ever wants to reach truth through falsehood, achieve justice through injustice, do a good by means of evil, or acquire piety through im-piety, he has certainly lost the way; he craves to get from the creation (which is the foundation of law and sharī‘ah) what it can never deliver. Had it ever been possible, this interchange would have hap-pened in characteristics of opposite things, and one side of opposite would have served what the other side was supposed to do.

Likewise, theQur’ãn negates the path of remembrance (which invalidates the procedure of thinking academics and dismisses the natural logic); and we have earlier discussed this topic in detail.

In the same way, theQur’ãn forbids people to indulge in con-templation without accompaniment of fear of Allãh. (We have talked briefly on this subject too.) That is why whenQur’ãn teaches the laws of religion; it follows that legislation with description of moral virtues and good characteristics, which in their turn awaken the instinct of piety in man, with which he is able to understand the law. Look for example the following verses: And when you have divorced the women and they have ended their term (of waiting), then do not prevent them from marrying their husbands when they agree among themselves in a lawful manner; with this is admonished whosoever among you believes in Allãh and the last day; this is more profitable and purer for you; and Allãh knows while you do not know (2:232). And fight with them until there is no more mischief (disbelief), and religion be only for Allãh; but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors (2:193). . and keep up prayer; surely prayer keeps (one) away from indecency and evil, and certainly the remembrance of Allãh is the greatest, and Allãh knows what you do (29:45).

QUR’ÃN: For this reason did We prescribed to the Children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; . .: Majma‘u 'l-bayãn says: “al-Ajl (اَلأَجْلُ ) literally means felony.” ar-Rãghib says in Mufradãtu 'l-Qur’ãn: “al-Ajl is that felony (retribution of) which is feared immediately; thus every ajl is a felony, but not every felony is ajl; it is said: 'I did it because of him.' “

Then it was used for describing the cause; it is said: 'I did it for this cause,' i.e., this is the cause of my action. Probably its use for description of cause began in the context of felony and crime, as we say: 'Zayd did evil and for this crime [ajl] I punished him with hitting,' i.e. my hitting Zayd sprang from his crime which was his evil-doing, or from crime of his evil-doing; then it was used for general cause and reason, as for example, I visited you for the reason of my love to you, or because of my love to you.

The context apparently shows that the phrase, “For this reason”, refers to the story of the two sons of Adam given in the preceding verses. That is, the occurance of that distressing event was the reason of our prescribing to the Children of Israel this and this. Some people have said that this phrase is a part of the preceding sentence: So he became of those who regret; i.e. this was the cause of his regretting. This in itself is not far-fetched, as we see in the verses 2:219-20: . Thus does Allãh make clear to you the signs, that you may ponder (219) about this world and the hereafter. And they ask you concerning the orphans . But in that case the words: “We prescribed”, would begin a new sentence, and the usual style of theQur’ãn would demand a وَ (wa) for recommencement of another sentence, as we have seen in the above-mentioned verse 2:220.

Why does this phrase refer to the story of the two sons of Adam? It is because the story shows that this human species by nature is entangled in desire and jealousy; thus he hates people for things that are beyond their power [i.e., are gifted by God]. This jealousy for even ordinary things instigates him against divine decrees for negating the purpose of creation; it blinds him so that he kills another human being, even his own brother.

Individual men belong to a single species and have the same essence and reality. Each of them possesses [in miniature] the same humanity that is possessed by all others, and vice versa. Allãh created so many individuals and multiplied the human race in order that this reality should survive, in view of the fact that individuals remain alive only for short periods; by this increase in population, new generations will replace the old, and the worship of Allãh will continue. In this background, destroying an individual by murder is tantamount to doing mischief in creation and negating the divine aim of keeping the humanity alive through increased population and succeeding gener-ations. To this fact the killed son of Adam had pointed while talking to his brother: “I am not one to stretch forth my hand towards you to slay you; surely I fear Allãh, the Lord of the worlds.” Thushe indi-cated that slaying someone without genuine reason was tantamount to waging war against Allãh's Lordship.

As the human nature is such that a trivial cause incites him to commit injustice and oppression, which in the long run, negates the laws given by the Lord and contradicts the purpose of creation of humanity in general; and as the Children of Israel were sunk in jeal-ousy and envy, pride and haughtiness, pursuit of desire and rejection of truth - as the preceding verses have described and their narrated stories show - Allãh explained to them the reality of this heinous oppression and its position in depth, and informed them that in His eyes slaying one man was equal to slaying all people, and conversely keeping one person alive was tantamount to keeping alive all of them.

The phrase: “We prescribed to the Children of Israel”, does not indicate any laid down law, yet it is not without emphasis looking at its importance and approach; and it has effect in provoking the divine wrath in this world or the next.

In short, the verse means: As man, by nature, is pushed even by a trivial motive to commit this great oppression [i.e. murder], and peculiar characteristics of the Children of Israel were well-known, We described to them the gravity of manslaughter, in order that they should desist from extravagance, and there came to them Our mess-engers with clear proofs, but even after that they certainly act extra-vagantly in the land.

The sentence: “whoever slays a soul, unless itbe for man-slaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men”. Here Allãh has made exception of two categories of killing: (i)In punishment, i.e., for retribution, as He says: . retaliation is pre-scribed for you in the matter of the slain; . (2:178). (ii) In punish-ment of mischief in the land, as He says in the next verse: The punishment of those who wage war against Allãh and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides . (5:33).

The seriousness of killing is elaborated by the phrase: “it is as though he slew all men.” We have already explained that each indi-vidual man possesses the same reality and quiddity, which is found in all members of thespecies, this reality lives and dies with him. All human beings, be he an individual or the whole species, one man or a multitude, all are one in this reality. Naturally, murdering one soul should be tantamount to killing the whole species. Conversely, keeping alive one man should be equal to keeping all men alive, as the verse says.

First Objection: This equalization leads to nullification of the main purpose of the verse. The verse aims at showing the seriousness and gravity of slaying a soul and its great sin and dire conesquences. Obviously, the more men one kills the more serious and grave its consequences should be. If one slaying is made equal to slaying all men, then what would be said for a man who kills ten men? One victim's murder becomes equal to murdering all men; and the remain-ing nine victims are left without anything to compare with.

This objection cannot be removed by saying that: 'Killing ten persons is equal to ten times murdering all men; and killing all of them is equal to murdering all multiplied by the total number of all'; because it means multiplication of punishment number, and the text of the verse does not support it.

Moreover, the total is made of units each of which is equal to the total, which is again made of such units; and this computation is not going to end at any point, and such a total is meaningless, be-cause it has no unit, and there is no total without unit.

Apart from that, Allãh says: . and whoever brings an evil deed, he shall not be recompensed but only with the like ofit, . . (6:160).

Second Objection: What is the meaning of saying that killing one person is equal to killing all? If this “all” includes this one person who is killed, it means that the said person is equal to a collection of himself and others taken together. But it is obviously impossible. If “killing all” connotes killing all persons accept this one, it means that whoever killed a man, it is as though he killed all men except this one. Obviously, it is a rotten claim that contradicts the purpose of speech, i.e. elaboration of the extreme seriousness of this oppression. Moreover, the phrase: “it is as though he slew all men”, is unconditional and without any exception; so it does not allow this hypothesis.

This objection cannot be cleared by saying that: 'The aim is to show equality as far as punishment is concerned, or in other words, multiplication of punishment or other such matters.' And it is clear.

The reply to both the above objections is this: The divine words: “whoever slays a soul, . it is as though he slew all men”, are an allusion to the fact that all men have one single reality, that is humanity in which all are united, and one and all are equal in it; whoever attacks the humanity found in one of them, he attacks the humanity found in all of them. For example, there is water divided in numerous glasses; whoever drinks from one glass he drinks the water - and he desires the water because it is water - and what is found in all other glasses is no more than water; thus it is as though he has drunk from all glasses. Therefore, the above-mentioned sentence is an allusion in the form of a simile.

In this way both objections are removed, because those objec-tions have treated it as a simple simile in which the factor of simi-larity intensifies when the number of a side of simile increases; obviously if in this case one is equalized with all the meaning will be disturbed and objection will arise, as if someone says: One of this group of people is like a lion, and one among them is like all in bravery and valour.

As for the sentence: “and whoever keeps it alive it is as though he kept alive all men”, it will be explained in the same way as the preceding sentence was. Keeping alive alludes to what the sane persons would call giving life, like delivering a drowning person and freeing a captive. Allãh in His Book has counted guiding to the truth as giving life, as He says: Is he who was dead then We raised him to life and made for him a light by which he walks among the people, . (6:122). Therefore, one who guides a soul to the true faith has raised him to life.

The clause: “and certainlyOur messengers came to them with clear proofs”, is related to the beginning of the verse, i.e., 'Certainly, Our messengers came to them warning them against murder and other related ways of making mischief in the land.' The next sentence: “but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land”, completes the speech, and its addition gives the intended result of this talk - a clear idea that the Children of Israel were extravagant, per-sisting in their arrogance and impertinence. We certainly described to them the gravity of murder, andOur messengers came to them with proofs, explaining this and other related topics. They clearly described it to them and warned them of its consequences; even then they did not desist from their haughtiness and insolence. They certainly acted extravagantly in the past, and continue to do so even now.

Extravagance means going beyond the boundary and exceed-ing this limit in all activities, although it is mostly used in monetary context. Allãh says: And they who when they spend, are neither extravagant nor parsimonious, and (keep) between these the just mean (25:67), as ar-Rãghib has said in his Mufradãtu 'l-Qur’ãn.

TRADITIONS

Hishãm ibn Sãlim narrates through Habīb as-Sijistãnī from AbūJa‘far (a.s.) that he said, “When the two sons of Adam offered (their) offerings, and it was accepted from one of them and was not accepted from the other; [the Imãm] said, 'It was accepted from Hãbīl and not accepted from Qãbīl. Because of it he (Qãbīl) was overcome by intense jealousy and he committed outrage against Hãbīl. He was lying in wait for him, watching when he would be alone, until he got the better of him, away from Adam; so he attacked and killed him. A part of their story is what Allãh has described in his Book concerning their talk before his killing . .'“ ( at-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyãshī)

The author says: This is one of the best traditions narrated about this story. It is a lengthy tradition in which the Imãm (a.s .) describes: the birth of Hibatullãh Shīth after this event, Adam's will for him; and continuation of will among the prophets. We shall write it in some appropriate place.

The tradition clearly shows that Qãbīl assassinated Hãbīl when Hãbīl was unaware of it, and he did not submit himself to the killer's design, as it agrees with reason; and we have elaborated it in the preceding Commentary.

It should be noted that our traditions give the names of the two sons as Hãbīl and Qãbīl, while the prevalent Bible says: Abel (Hãbīl) and Cain (Qãbīl). But there is no authenticity in it, because the narration of the Torah ends on one person whose details are unknown, apart from the alterations in the Torah, which are widely known.

al-Qummī narrates from his father, from al-Hasan ibn Mahbūb, from Hishãm ibn Sãlim, from Abū Hamzah ath-Thumãlī, from Thuwayr ibn Abī Fãkhitah that he said, “I heard ‘Alī ibn al-Husayn (a.s.), talking to some Qurayshites. He said, 'When the two sons of Adam offered (their) offering, one of them offered the fattest ram which he kept, and the other offered a bunch of ear of grain; so it was accepted from the owner of the ram - and he was Hãbīl - and not accepted from the other one. Thus Qãbīl was angry, and said to Hãbīl, “By Allãh! I will most certainly slay you.” Hãbīl said, “Allãh only accepts from those who are pious. If you will stretch forth your hand towards me to slay me, I am not one to stretch forth my hand towards you to slay you; surely I fear Allãh, the Lord of the worlds. Surely I wish that you should bear my sin as well as your own sin, and so you would be of the inmates of the Fire, and this is the recompense of the unjust.” Then his mind facilitated to him the slaying of his brother; but he did not know how to kill him until Iblīs came and taught him, saying, “Put his head between two rocks,then crush it.” So when he killed him, he did not know whatshould he do with him. Then came two crows, and they came forward fighting and combating with one another; so one of them killed his companion; then the survivor dug into the land with his claws and buried his companion in it. Qãbīl said, “Woe me! Do I lack the strength that I should be like this crow and cover the dead body of my brother? So he became of those who regret.” Then he dug for him a ditch and buried him into it; thus it became a custom to bury the dead bodies.

“ 'Thereafter Qãbīl returned to his father, and he did not see Hãbīl with him. Adam said to him, “Where have you left my son?” Qãbīl told him, “Had you sent me as his guardian?” Adam said, “Come with me to the place of offering.” And [Adam] had a fore boding of what Qãbīl had done. When he arrived at the place of offering, Hãbīl's murder became clear to him. Then Adam cursed the land that accepted Hãbīl's blood [i.e. drank the blood, leaving nothing above]; and Adam ordered that Qãbīl be cursed, and Qãbīl was called from the sky: “You are cursed as you killed your brother.” It is for the above reason that the earth does not drink blood.

“ 'Then Adam returned, weeping for Hãbīl forty days and nights. When he felt grief for him, he complained to Allãh about it. So Allãh revealed to him: “I am going to give you a male child who will be a replacement of Hãbīl.” Thus Hawwã’ gave birth to a son, pure and blessed; when it was the seventh day, Allãh revealed to him: “O Adam! This son is my gift to you; therefore you name him Hibatullãh [i.e. Allãh's gift]; so Adam gave him the name Hibatullãh.'“ ( at-Tafsīr, al-Qummī)

The author says: This is the most moderate of the traditions narrated about this story and the matters connected with it. Even so, it is not free of some confusion in the text; as it shows that Qãbīl threatened Hãbīl to kill him, and then he did not know how to kill him; it is an unimaginable idea, except if it is taken to mean that he was perplexed which method he should use to kill his brother, so Iblīs (may Allãh curse him!) advised him to crush his head with rock. There are other traditions, narrated through the Shī‘ah and Sunnī chains, whose theme is nearer to this tradition.

It should be noted that many diverse traditions have been nar-rated about this event with astonishing themes, like:

The one that says that Allãh took the ram of Hãbīl, and kept it in the Garden for forty autumns, then offered it asIsmã‘īl's ransom, so Ibrãhīm slaughtered it:

Or that which says that Hãbīl surrendered himself to Qãbīl's control and desisted from stretching forth his hand towards his brother;

Or that which says that when Qãbīl killed his brother, Allãh bound one of his legs to its thigh from the day of murder to the Day of Resurrection, and turned his face to right side, wherever he turns it turns; on him is a hedge of ice in winter, and a hedge of fire in summer; there are with him seven angels, when one of them goes, another one comes;

Or that which says that he is undergoing punishment in an island in sea; Allãh has hanged him upside down, and he will remain in the same condition upto the Day of Resurrection;

Or that which says that Qãbīl son of Adam hangs by his hair in core of the sun; it takes him with it in its circulation - in winter and summer - upto the Day of Resurrection; when that day comes. Allãh will send him into the Fire;

Or that which says that the son of Adam, who killed his brother, was Qãbīl who was born in the Garden;

Or that which says that when Adam came to know of the murder of Hãbīl, he elegized him in a few lines of Arabic poem;

Or that which says that according to their sharī‘ah if someone intended to attack another person, the victim left him free to do whatever he wanted, without resistence.

In addition to other such traditions, most or all of these and other similar traditions are weak; they go against the dictates of reason, and the Book does not support them. Some of them are clearly forged; others are distorted, while many are the result of the narrators' mistake who tried to narrate them in their own words.

Ibn Abī Shaybah narrates from ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.a.) said, “Does one of you lack the strength, if a man comes to him to slay him, to say like it?” - He said it pointing with one of his hands to the other - “Then he would be like the good one of the two sons of Adam; he would be in the Garden and his killer in the Fire. (ad-Durru 'l-manthūr)

The author says: It is among the traditions describing civil strifes and trials. There are many others like it, and as-Suyūtī has narrated most of them in ad-Durru 'l-manthūr. For example, the following one which he has quoted through al-Bayhaqī, from Abū Mūsã from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) that he said: “Break your swords” - i.e., during civil strife - “and cut your strings, and stay inside the houses, and be in it like the good one of the two sons of Adam.”

Another tradition he has quoted through Ibn Jarīr and ‘Abdu 'r-Razzãq from al-Hasan that he said, “The Messenger of Allãh (s.a. w.a.), said, 'Verily the two sons of Adam have been offered as an example for this ummah; so adhere to the good one of them.'“ There are other narrations like them.

These traditions apparently are not consistent with correct consideration, which is supported by correct traditions, which com-mand people to defendthemselves and fight in support of truth. Allãh has said: And if two parties of the believers quarrel, make peace between them; but if one of them acts wrongfully towards the other, fight that which acts wrongly until it returns to Allãh's command (49:9).

Moreover, all of these traditions purport to explain the words of Hãbīl in this story: “If you will stretch forth your hand towards me to slay me, I am not one to stretch forth my hand towards you to slay you”, and try to show that Hãbīl gave his brother power over himself enabling him to kill him without any attempt to defend himself. And you have seen that this idea is not in conformity with the Qur’ãnic text.

Apart from that, what makes one suspicious of these traditions is the fact that they have been narrated by people who sat during turmoils that led to ‘Uthmãn's murder, and during ‘Alī's reign they joined Mu‘ãwiyah, the Khãrijites and Talhah and az-Zubayr. There-fore, it is necessary to interpret them in a sensible way if possible, failing which they should be discarded.

Ibn ‘Asãkir has narrated from ‘Alī (a.s .) that the Prophet (s.a. w.a.) said, “There is a mountain in Damascus, called Qãsiyūn; son of Adam killed his brother in it.”(ibid.)

The author says: There is no objection to this tradition. However, Ibn ‘Asãkir has narrated through one chain from Ka‘bu 'l-Ahbãr that he said, “The blood, which is on the mountain of Qãsiyūn, is that of the son of Adam.” Also he narrates through another chain from ‘Amr ibn Khabīr ash-Sha‘bãnī that he said, “I was with Ka‘bu 'l-Ahbãr on the mountain, Dayru 'l-Murrãn; and he saw a flowing chasm in it; so he said, 'Here the son of Adam had killed his brother, and this is the trace of his blood; Allãh has made it a sign for the worlds.' “

These two traditions show that there was there some firm sign, which was claimed to be the blood of Hãbīl. In all probability, it looks like so many myths which crafty people have invented, so that people should come there to visit it, bringing with them large votive offerings and precious gifts, not unlike so many palm-prints and foot-prints on stones,30 and the grave of the grandmother31 and other such things.

Ahmad, al-Bukhãrī, Muslim, at-Tirmidhī, an-Nasã’ī, Ibn Mãjah, Ibn Jarīr and Ibnu 'l-Mundhir have narrated from Ibn Mas‘ūd that he said, “The Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.a.), said, 'No soul will be slain unjustly but a portion of its blood shall be apportioned to the first son of Adam, because he was the first to establish the custom of killing.'“ ( ibid.)

The author says: This theme has been narrated through other Sunnī and Shī‘ah chain

Humrãn said, “I said to Abū Ja‘far (a.s.), 'What is the meaning of the words of Allãh, the Mighty, the Great: For this reason did We prescribe to the Children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men?'“ He [Humrãn] said, “How can it be as though he slew all men, while he had slain a single soul? He (a.s.) said, 'He will be put in a place in Jahannam (Gehenna) where the punishment of the people of the Fire reaches its utmost limit; if he had killed all men, he would have entered the same place.' I said, 'Then if he killed another (man)?' He said, 'It will be increased for him.'“ ( al-Kãfī)

The author says: as-Sadūq too has narrated a similar tradition in Ma‘ãni 'l-akhbãr from Humrãn.

Humran's question, “Then if he killed another (man)?” points to the above-mentioned objection that it makes one murder equal to that murder plus all others. The Imãm (a.s .) has replied that his punish-ment will be increased for him.

At this juncture someone may think that this reply of the Imãm (a.s .) goes against the equality mentioned in the verse: whoever slays a soul . it is as though he slew all men, because increase means that murder of one or many or all is not equal. Butthis objection is not sustainable, because equality refers to the nature of punishment, i.e. all murderers - whether of one or many or all - will be put in one valley of Jahannam, and to this fact refer the Imãm's words: “if he had killed all men, he would have entered the same place.”

The evidence for this explanation is found in a tradition nar-rated by al-‘Ayyãshī in his at-Tafsīr, from the same Humrãn from Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s.) about this verse, that the Imãm (a.s.) said, “There is a place in the Fire where the punishment of all the people of the Fire reaches its utmost limit, so he will be put in it.” “I [i.e. Humrãn] said, 'And if he had killed two?' (The Imãm,a.s .), said, 'Don't you see that there is no place in the Fire more severe in punishment than this?' Then he said, '[His punishment] will be increased according to his deed . .' “

The Imãm (a.s .) has joined negative and positive in his reply; it points to what we have already explained that equality is in the nature of punishment and difference will be in intensity of punishment and the effect it will have on the killer.

Some more evidence may be found in what Hannãn ibn Sudayr has narrated from Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s.) that he said about the verse: whoever slays asoul, . . it is as though he slew all men. “There is a valley in Jahannam, if he slew all men, he will be (put) in it, and if he slew one soul he will be (put) in it.” This too is narrated in at-Tafsīr of al-‘Ayyãshī.

The author says: It is as though the verse is quoted not verba-tum in this hadīth.

[al-Kulaynī] narrates through his chain from Fudayl ibn Yasãr that he said, “I asked AbūJa‘far (a.s.), about the word of Allãh, the Mighty, the Great, in His Book: and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men. He said, '(It is saving) from burning or drowning.' I said, 'He who takes him out from error to guidance?' He said, 'That is its greatest ta’wīl.'“ ( al-Kãfī)

The author says: ash-Shaykh has narrated it in his al-Amãlī, and al-Barqī in his al-Mahãsin, through Fudayl from AbūJa‘far (a.s.); and it has been narrated by Sumã‘ah and Humrãn from Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s.).

The statement that saving from error is the greatest ta’wīl of this verse means that it is its finest and most subtle explanation. In early period of Islam the word, ta’wīl, was often used as a synonym of tafsīr.

This explanation of ours is supported by what has been nar-rated in at-Tafsīr of al-‘Ayyãshī from Muhammad ibn Muslim from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) that he said, “I asked the Imãm (a.s.), about the word of Allãh: whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men. (The Imãm) said, 'For him there is a place in the Fire, if he killed all men, his punishment will not increase on it.' He said, 'and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men. He did not kill him, or saved him from drowning or burning; and the greatest of this all is that he takes him out from error to guidance.' “

The author says: The Imãm's saying, “He did not kill him”, means: 'He did not take revenge against him (the victim) though he could do so after the killing has been proved.'

al-‘Ayyãshī also says in his at-Tafsīr that Abū Basīr narrated from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) that he said, “I asked him (the Imãm, about the verse): whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; he (a.s.), said, 'Whoever saves one from the unbelief (kufr) to belief (īmãn).' “

The author says: This theme has been mentioned in many traditions narrated through Sunnī chains.

AbūJa‘far (a.s.) said, “Extravagants are those who regard unlawful things as lawful and shed blood.” (Majma‘u 'l-bayãn)

AN ACADEMIC DISCOURSE AND APPLICATION

The Torah says:

1. And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

2. And she againbare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

3. And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

4. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

5. But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

6. And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth?and why is thy cauntenance fallen?

7. If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

8. And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

9. And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother?and he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

10. And he said,What hast thou done?the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

11. And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;

12. When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

13. And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.

14. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

15. And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him seven fold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

16. And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. (Genesis, 4:1-16)

TheQur’ãn says about the story of the two sons of Adam:

17. And relate to them the story of the two sons of Adam with truth when they both offered an offering, but it was accepted from one of them and was not accepted from the other. He said: “I will most certainly slay you.” (The other) said: “Allãh only accepts from those who are pious.

18. “If you will stretch forth your hand towards me to slay me, I am not one to stretch forth my hand towards you to slay you; surely I fear Allãh the Lord of the worlds.

19. “Surely I wish that you should bear my sin as well as your own sin, and so you would be of the inmates of the Fire, and this is the recompense of the unjust.”

20. Then his mind facilitated to him the slaying of his brother, so he slew him; then he became one of the losers.

21. Then Allãh sent a crow digging up the earth so that he might show him how he should cover the dead body of his brother. He said: “Woe me! Do I lack the strength that I should be like this crow and cover the dead body of my brother?” So he became of those who regret. (Qur’ãn, 5:27-31)

You should contemplate on this story as described by the Torah and then compare it with the narrative of the Qur’ãn; then decide for yourself.

The first thing which hits your eyes in the story of the Torah is that it has turned God the Lord into an earthly creature in the image of man, who lives with the men, issues decrees for and against them as another man may do; he comes near him and talks to him as one man to another; then he hides himself by going away and becoming absent; so he does not see an absent and far away thing or person as he sees a nearby and present person. In short, he is just like a terresterial man in every aspect; the only difference is that his intentions come into force and his orders are carried out. On this basis are built all the teachings of the Tawrãt and the Injīl; far exalted be Allãh from such insinuations!

This Biblical story makes us to understand that man at that time lived face to face with Allãh and his physical presence; then Allãh hid himself from Cain or from Cain and people like him, while the others continued to see him plainly. But irrefutable proofs show that man-kind is one species, its individuals have similar faculties and powers, and they live in this world the material lives, while Allãh is totally free of material attributes and conditions; accidents of possibility and attributes of defect cannot touch his subtle position - and this is what the Qur’ãn describes.

As for the Qur’ãn, its story is based on the fact that all men share similar traits and is joined in humanity. Then it goes on to tell the story of the appearance of the crow on the scene, and discloses the fact that man gradually advances to his perfection, and that his step-by-step perfection is based on his sensory perception and contempla-tion. Then it describes the talk of the two brothers; and quotes Hãbīl's discourse which contains brilliant cognition of human nature, and fundamental religious factors like tawhīd, prophethood and resurrec-tion; then he explains piety and impiety, justice and injustice - the two basics which govern all divine laws and sharī‘ah's rules; finally he elaborates the principle of justice of God concerning acceptance and non-acceptance and the recompense in the next world.

Then theQur’ãn describes the remorse and regret of the killer and his loss in this world and the next. Lastly, it shows the gravity of the crime of murder that to slay one soul is tantamount to slaying all men; and whoever keeps one soul alive is as though he kept alive all men.

* * * * *