(And it is not for a believer) – This is the commencement of clarifying the state of the believers after having clarified the state of the disbelievers and the hypocrites. It is said: when the Glorified [Allah] encouraged the fighting of the disbelievers, He mentioned what follows it concerning matters related to warfare in general, meaning: it is not fitting for him in his state (to kill a believer) except by mistake. Indeed, faith acts as a restraint against that, whereas mistake is something that one can hardly guard against entirely, and a combatant is rarely free from it. Its accusative case [the word khata'an] is either because it is a circumstantial qualifier (i.e., it is not for him to kill a believer in any state except in the state of mistake), or because it is the maf'ul lahu (i.e., it is not for him to kill him for any cause whatsoever, except for the sake of a mistake), or because it is a descriptor of the verbal noun (i.e., except for a mistaken killing). The exception in all of these is "vacuous" (mufarragh), and it is a connected exception according to what the speech of some investigators suggests. It does not necessitate that killing by mistake is permissible in Sharia, as the meaning is that it is the nature of a believer not to kill except by mistake.
Some have said: The exception in the verse is disconnected (munqati'), meaning: "But if he kills him by mistake, then his recompense is what will be mentioned." It is also said: "Except" (illa) carries the meaning of "nor," and the estimation is: "And it is not for a believer to kill a believer, neither intentionally nor by mistake." It is also said: the exception is from "a believer," meaning: "except one who is mistaken." The preferred view, despite the significant separation in such instances, is the accusative case. "Mistake" (al-khata') is that which is not accompanied by intent toward the action or the person, or where the shedding of blood is not generally intended, or where no forbidden act is intended—such as shooting a Muslim in the ranks of the disbelievers while being ignorant of his Islam.
It is read as khata'an with elongation, and khata on the measure of 'aman with a softened hamza. Ibn Jarir and Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from al-Suddī that 'Ayyash ibn Abi Rabi'a al-Makhzumi—who was the brother of Abu Jahl and al-Harith ibn Hisham through their mother—had accepted Islam and migrated to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). He was the mother’s most beloved child, which distressed her so much that she swore not to be shaded by the roof of a house until she saw him. Abu Jahl and al-Harith came to Medina and informed 'Ayyash of what his mother was suffering and asked him to return with them so she could see him, promising not to prevent him from returning. They gave him a binding oath that they would release him after his mother saw him. He went with them, but when they left Medina, they turned on him, tied him up, and lashed him about one hundred times. A man from the tribe of Kinana aided them in this. 'Ayyash swore that if he could, he would kill the Kinani man. They brought him to Mecca, where he remained imprisoned until the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) conquered Mecca. 'Ayyash went out and encountered the Kinani man, who had since accepted Islam, though 'Ayyash was unaware of his conversion. He struck him until he killed him. He was informed of the truth later, so he went to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and told him the story, and then this [verse] was revealed. A similar account is narrated from Mujahid and 'Ikrimah.
Ibn Jarir recorded from Ibn Zayd that it was revealed concerning a man whom Abu al-Darda' killed. He was in a military expedition, and Abu al-Darda' turned into a mountain pass for a need he had, where he found a man from the people with his sheep. He attacked him with a sword, and the man said, "There is no god but Allah." He ignored him and struck him. Then he brought the sheep to the group, but found something in his soul [a troubled conscience]. He came to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and mentioned this to him. The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Did you not split open his heart? Yet he informed you with his tongue, and you did not believe him." He said: "How will it be for me, O Messenger of Allah?" He (upon him be peace and prayer) replied: "How will it be for you and 'There is no god but Allah'?" This was repeated. Abu al-Darda' said: "I wished that day had been the beginning of my Islam." Then the Quran was revealed: (And whoever kills a believer by mistake, then the freeing of a slave) i.e., upon him—meaning it is his obligation—is the freeing of a slave. Tahrir is emancipation, and its original meaning is to make one free, i.e., noble, because it is said of everyone who is honored that he is hurr (free). From this is hurr al-wajh (the unblemished part of the cheek) and the "free birds." The "freeing" of a book also comes from this. What is meant by the "neck" (raqaba) is the soul, expressing the whole by the part. Al-Raghib said: In common usage, it is for slaves, just as one uses "head" or "back" to refer to a mount, so it is said: "So-and-so ties so many heads, and so many backs." (Believing) [woman/slave]—judged to be a believer even if she is young. 'Ata' held this view, and it is narrated from Ibn Abbas, al-Sha'bi, Ibrahim, and al-Hasan that a child or a disbeliever does not suffice as an expiation for killing. 'Abd al-Razzaq recorded from Qatadah that he said regarding the recitation of Ubayy: "The freeing of a believing slave," [meaning] a child does not suffice in it. The verse serves as a refutation against those who claim the permissibility of freeing a young Kitabi [person of the book], or a Magian (adult or child). It is used as evidence that half a slave and another half do not suffice.
(And blood money delivered to his people) i.e., paid to the heirs of the slain, to be divided among them according to their inheritance shares. The four authors of the Sunan recorded from al-Dahhak ibn Sufyan al-Kilabi that he said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) wrote to me ordering me to grant the wife of Ashyam al-Dababi a share of her husband’s blood money, and that debts be paid from it and his will be executed; there is no difference between it and the rest of the estate. From Sharik: "Debts are not to be paid from the blood money, nor is the will to be executed." From Rabi'a: "The ghurra [compensation] is for the mother of the fetus only," and this is contrary to the view of the majority. The slave must be provided from the killer's wealth, and the blood money is borne by the 'aqila (the paternal kinsmen); if they do not exist, it is from the Public Treasury (bayt al-mal); if that does not exist, it is from his own wealth.
(Unless they give it as charity) i.e., if his family gives it as charity to him. Calling the pardon "charity" is an encouragement to do so. The two Sheikhs [Bukhari and Muslim] recorded from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "Every good deed is charity." It is connected to "upon him" which is estimated before, or to "delivered." Meaning: he must pay the blood money at all times, except when his family gives it as charity, in which case it is dropped and delivery is not required. There is no evidence in it, as some have said, for the dropping of the freeing [of the slave], so that it would necessitate estimating another "upon him" before His saying: "And blood money delivered..." The structure [of the exception] is in the place of an accusative because it is an exception. Al-Zamakhshari said: The structure is in the place of an accusative as a state (hal) from the killer, or the family, or as an adverbial time. Abu Hayyan countered this by saying both derivations are incorrect because "an" [that] and the verb cannot function as a state, nor as an accusative for adverbial time, as the grammarians have stated. He mentioned that some have used as evidence for "an" and its conjunctive acting as an adverb of time the line: "I said to her, do not marry him, for the first arrow's time of meeting is at the gathering," i.e., "at the time of its meeting." Ibn Malik, as al-Safaqsi said, estimates in the verse and the verse a preposition, i.e., "by [the fact] that they give as charity" and "by [the fact] that it meets." Ubayy read it as: "Unless they give as charity."
(But if he was) i.e., the one killed by mistake, (of a people [who are] enemies to you) i.e., disbelievers who wage war against you, (and he is a believer) and the killer did not know of it because he was among his people—for instance, he came to them after he became a Muslim for some reason, or he became a Muslim among them and did not depart from them. The verse was revealed, as Ibn Jubayr said, concerning Mirdas ibn 'Amr when Usamah ibn Zayd killed him by mistake. (Then the freeing of a believing slave)—i.e., upon his killer is the expiation without the blood money, since there are no heirs between him and his family. (And if he was) i.e., the slain believer, as narrated from Jabir ibn Zayd, (from a people between whom and you is a treaty) i.e., a temporary or permanent pact, (then blood money) i.e., upon his killer (delivered to his people)—meaning from the people of Islam if they are found; it is not to be paid to his relatives who are disbelievers, even if they are treaty-bound, since the disbeliever does not inherit from the Muslim. Perhaps the mentioning of this ruling first, as is said, with the delaying of its counterpart in what preceded, is to signal the haste in delivering the blood money, guarding against the delusion of breaking the treaty. (And the freeing of a believing slave)—as is the ruling for all other Muslims. Perhaps singling it out for mention, as is also said, while it is included in the ruling of what preceded in His saying, the Glorified: "And whoever kills a believer by mistake, etc.," is to clarify that his being among the treaty-bound does not prevent the obligation of blood money, just as his being among those at war did not prevent it. It is also said: The intended "slain" here is one of those treaty-bound people [a disbeliever], so his killer is required to free a slave and pay blood money to his polytheist family due to the treaty between us and them. This is narrated from Ibn Abbas, al-Sha'bi, and Abu Malik. It is used as evidence that the blood money of a Muslim and a dhimmi are the same, because Allah mentioned the expiation and blood money for both, so their blood money must be the same, just as the expiation for them is the same. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from Ibn Shihab that he said: "It has reached us that the blood money of the treaty-bound was like the blood money of the Muslim, then it was reduced later in time, making it half the blood money of a Muslim." Abu Dawud recorded from 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, that the blood money of the People of the Book was, during the time of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), half of the blood money of the Muslims, and Malik adopted this. From al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him): "The blood money of the Jew and the Christian is half the blood money of the Muslim, and the blood money of the Magian is one-thirteenth of it." Some claimed that blood money is also obligatory if the slain person is from a people who are enemies to us but he himself is a believer, due to the generality of the first verse, and that the silence regarding blood money in its verse does not negate it; rather, it was remained silent upon because no blood money is due to be delivered to his family since they are disbelievers; instead, it goes to the Public Treasury. He intended by the silence to show that his family is not entitled to anything. Others said: The blood money is obligatory in the case of a believer if he is from a treaty-bound people, and it is paid to his disbelieving family, and they are more entitled to his blood money due to their treaty. Perhaps these do not count this as inheritance, since the disbeliever—even if treaty-bound—does not inherit from the Muslim, as has been demonstrated.
(And whoever does not find [a slave] to free) by not owning one or the price to acquire one, (then a fast of two consecutive months). Mujahid said: "There is no breaking the fast between them, and he should not interrupt their fasting. If he does so without illness or excuse, he must restart the fasting entirely. If an illness or excuse befalls him, he fasts what remains of them. If he dies without having fasted, sixty poor persons are to be fed on his behalf, one mudd for each poor person." Recorded by Ibn Abi Hatim. He also recorded from him that he said: "Whoever does not find the blood money or the means for emancipation, then upon him is the fast." And those who hold that the fast for one who lacks the blood money and the slave suffices for both adopted this. Limiting the estimate of "slave" as the object [of "find"] is what is narrated from the majority. Ibn Jarir recorded from al-Dahhak that he said: "The fast is for him who does not find a slave, as for the blood money, it is obligatory and nothing nullifies it." Then he said: "And this is the correct view, because the blood money in a case of mistake is upon the 'aqila [kinsmen], and the expiation is upon the killer, so the fasting of a faster does not suffice for what is incumbent upon another in his wealth." The verse was used as evidence by those who said there is no feeding [the poor] in this expiation. Those who say one shifts to it upon inability to fast equate it to Zihar [a specific form of divorce/oath], and this is one of two sayings of al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him). By mentioning the expiation in the case of mistake and not intentional [killing], those who say there is no expiation for intentional [killing] [found their proof], while al-Shafi'i says: "It is more deserving of it than a mistake."
(Repentance) is in the accusative case as a maf'ul lahu [reason for the action], i.e., "That has been prescribed for you as a repentance," meaning an acceptance of it from him who turns to Allah, the Exalted, when He accepts his repentance. In this is an indication of the shortcoming in abandoning caution. It is also said that "repentance" means lightening/mitigation, i.e., "This has been prescribed for you as a mitigation for you." It is also said it is in the accusative as a state of the pronoun in "upon him," with the omission of the genitive, i.e., "Upon him is a fast of two months while he is in a state of repentance." It is also said it is as a verbal noun, i.e., "Allah has accepted your repentance as a repentance." His saying, the Glorified: (From Allah) is connected to an omitted [word] that functions as an adjective for the indefinite, i.e., "A repentance that is from Allah, the Exalted." (And Allah is ever Knowing) of all things, of which the state of this killer is a part, (Wise) in all that He has prescribed and decreed of the rulings, of which is what He has prescribed and decreed regarding his case.
