Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:93

(By intending to kill him with that which causes the fragmentation of body parts, or with that which he cannot survive under any circumstances, while being aware of his faith). "Intentionally" (muta‘ammidan) is in the accusative case, acting as a circumstantial qualifier (hal) from the doer of the verb "kills." It is narrated from al-Kisa’i that he vocalized the 'ta' with a sukun (quiescence), as if fleeing from the succession of vowel movements.

(His recompense)—that which he deserves for his crime—(is Hell, abiding therein): meaning remaining there forever, or a long stay until such time as Allah Almighty wills. This is a "predestined circumstantial qualifier" (hal muqaddara) from the subject of an implied verb necessitated by the context, as if it were said: "His recompense is that he enters Hell, abiding therein." Abu al-Baqa’ said: It is a circumstantial qualifier from the pronoun—whether in the nominative or accusative case—within the implied verb yujza’uha (he is recompensed for it). It is said: It is only from the accusative, implying jazahu (He recompensed him), and this is supported by the fact that it is more appropriate for what follows to be conjoined to it, as it agrees with it in form. It is forbidden to make it a circumstantial qualifier from the genitive pronoun in fajaza’uhu (his recompense) for two reasons: First, it would be a circumstantial qualifier from the genitive modifier (mudaf ilayh); and second, it would separate the circumstantial qualifier from the one it describes (dhu al-hal) by the predicate of the nominal sentence.

And the saying of the Glorified: (And Allah has become angry with him): This is conjoined to an implied phrase which the conditional structure indicates clearly. It is as if it is by way of initiation, confirming the content of the conditional: Allah Almighty has decreed that his recompense is that, and He has become angry with him—that is, He has exacted vengeance upon him, according to the doctrine of the Ash'arites.

(And has cursed him): That is, He has distanced him from His mercy by making his recompense that which was mentioned. It is said that this and what follows are conjoined to the predicate by estimating an "that" (an), and by interpreting the past tense in the meaning of the future tense—that is, "His recompense is Hell, and that Allah Almighty should be angry with him," etc.

(And has prepared for him a great punishment): (That whose magnitude cannot be estimated).

The verse, as Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from Ibn Jubayr, was revealed regarding Miqyas ibn Dhababa al-Kinani. He and his brother Hisham accepted Islam and were in Medina. One day, Miqyas found his brother Hisham dead among the Ansar in the tribe of Banu Najjar. He went to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and informed him of that. So the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) sent a man from the Quraysh, from the tribe of Banu Fihr, along with Miqyas, to the Banu Najjar—whose dwellings were then in Quba’—saying: "Hand over to Miqyas the killer of his brother if you know him; otherwise, pay him the blood money (diyah)." When the messenger came to them, they said: "We hear and obey Allah Almighty and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). By Allah, we do not know a killer for him, but we will pay the blood money." They paid Miqyas one hundred camels as the blood money for his brother. When Miqyas and the Fihri turned back, traveling from Quba’ to Medina, with an hour’s distance between them, Miqyas attacked the Fihri, the messenger of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and killed him, then apostatized from Islam. In one narration, he struck him against the earth and crushed his head between two stones, mounted a camel from the blood money, drove the rest with him, and fled to Mecca, saying in a poem of his:

I killed Fihr in retaliation for him, and I carried his blood money The chiefs of Banu Najjar, the masters of the millstones I attained my revenge and left him lying prostrate And I was the first to return to the idols.

Then this verse was revealed, containing thunderous threats, severe intimidation, and distancing. This is confirmed by what has been reported from the Master of Mankind (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Ahmad and al-Nasa’i recorded from Mu’awiyah that he heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) say: "Every sin Allah Almighty may forgive, except for a man who dies a disbeliever, or a man who kills a believer intentionally." Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from Abu al-Darda’ a similar statement. Ibn ‘Adi and al-Bayhaqi recorded from Ibn ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Whoever assists in the shedding of the blood of a Muslim, even with half a word, shall have written between his eyes on the Day of Resurrection: 'Despairing of the mercy of Allah'." They both recorded from al-Bara’ ibn ‘Azib that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "The passing of the world and all that is in it is easier for Allah Almighty than the killing of a believer. And if the inhabitants of His heavens and the inhabitants of His earth were to participate in the blood of a believer, Allah Almighty would surely cast them into the Fire." In a narration by al-Asbahani from Ibn ‘Umar, he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "If the two heavy ones (mankind and jinn) were to gather to kill a believer, Allah Almighty would cast them upon their faces into the Fire." And that Allah Almighty has forbidden Paradise to the killer and the one who ordered it.

The Mu'tazilah used this and similar "shattering" verses as evidence for the eternal stay in the Fire for one who kills a believer intentionally. Some investigators answered that this is stated in the vein of hyperbole in warning, especially since the structure of the verse requires it, like the saying of the Almighty: "Whoever disbelieves" in the Surah of al-Hajj, and the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad, as found in the two Sahihs, when he asked him about killing an infidel who accepted Islam after he had cut off his hand in battle: "Do not kill him; for if you kill him, he will be in the position you were in before you killed him, and you will be in the position he was in before he said the word he said." Upon this is carried what ‘Abd ibn Humayd recorded from al-Hasan, who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "I argued with my Lord regarding the killer of a believer, asking that a repentance be made for him, but He refused me." And what he recorded from Sa'id ibn ‘Ubayda, that he said: "I was sitting next to Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) when a man came to him and asked him about the killer of a believer: 'Does he have a repentance?' He said: 'No. By Him besides Whom there is no god, he shall not enter Paradise until the camel passes through the eye of the needle.'"

It became widespread that Ibn ‘Abbas denied the possibility of repentance, and more than one recorded this from him; this is understood according to what we have mentioned. This is supported by what Ibn Humayd and al-Nahhas recorded from Sa'id ibn ‘Ubayda, that Ibn ‘Abbas used to say: "For the one who killed a believer, there is repentance." Then a man came to him and asked: "Is there repentance for the one who killed a believer?" He said: "No, except the Fire." When the man left, his companions said to him: "You did not use to give us this ruling; you used to rule that the one who killed a believer has an accepted repentance. What is the matter with today?" He said: "I suspect him to be an angry man wanting to kill a believer." They sent someone after him, and they found him to be so. This was also the custom of other elders; Sufyan said: "The scholars, when asked, would say: 'He has no repentance.' But if a man was afflicted with it, they would say to him: 'Repent.'"

Others answered that what is meant by "abiding" in the verse is a long stay, not perpetuity, due to the abundance of texts which state that disobedient believers will not have their punishment last forever. Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from ‘Awn ibn ‘Abdullah that he said: "His recompense is Hell, if He recompenses him." A similar report is narrated with a weak chain from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), attributed to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). It is said: "This is as a person says to someone he is warning against a matter: 'If you do it, your recompense is killing and beating.' Then, if he does not punish him, that is not a lie on his part." The principle in this, according to what al-Wahidi said, is that it is permissible for Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, to break a threat, even though it is impossible for Him to break a promise. The Sunnah has come with this; for in the hadith of Anas (may Allah be pleased with him), the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Whoever Allah Almighty has promised a reward for his work, He will fulfill it for him; and whoever He has threatened with punishment for his work, He has the choice." Among the supplications of the truthful Imams (may Allah be pleased with them) is: "O You who, when He promises, fulfills, and when He threatens, forgives." The Arabs took pride in breaking a threat and did not consider it a deficiency, as is indicated by his saying: "And I, when I threaten him or promise him, am one who breaks my threat and fulfills my promise." It was objected that a threat is a category of reporting, and if it is permissible to break it—which is a lie for the sake of showing generosity—why would it not be permissible in stories and news for a specific purpose? Opening that door leads to casting doubt on all religions.

Those who advocate for the forgiveness of some of those threatened hold different views. Some claimed that the verses of threat are an "initiation" (insha’), and some said: "They are reports, but there is a conditional clause omitted for the sake of intimidation, so there is no breaking of the promise in forgiving them." Shaykh al-Islam said: "The investigation is that there is no necessity to branch out what we are discussing upon the foundation that it is a report from Him, the Almighty, that his recompense is that, not that He will surely recompense him. How could it be otherwise, when the Almighty said: 'The recompense of a bad deed is a bad deed the like thereof'? If this were a report that He, the Exalted, recompenses every bad deed with its like, it would contradict His saying, the Sublime: 'And He pardons much.'" This is taken from the words of Abu Salih and Bakr ibn ‘Abdullah. Abu ‘Ali al-Jubba’i objected to this, saying that what is not performed is not called a "recompense" (jaza’). Do you not see that if an employee deserves a wage, the dirhams in the possession of his employer are not called a "recompense" unless they are given to him and reach him?

Al-Tabarsi countered this, saying that this is not correct, because "recompense" is an expression for what is deserved, whether it is performed or not. Therefore, it is said: "The recompense of the doer of good is goodness, and the recompense of the doer of evil is evil," even if the doer of good and the doer of evil are not specified so that it can be said: "He performed that with them or did not." It is said to someone who killed another: "The recompense of this is that you be killed," and it is a truthful statement even if the killing is not carried out. Dirhams are not called a "recompense" for the employee only because the employee deserves the wage as a liability (dhimma), not in specific dirhams; so the employer has the right to give him from those or from others.

It was objected: Even if we concede that it is not necessary for the recompense to be performed, many verses—such as His saying: "Whoever does evil will be recompensed for it," and "Whoever does an atom's weight of evil will see it"—indicate that He, the Almighty, definitely delivers the recompense to those who deserve it. The verse contains that which points to it. But it is not hidden what is in this, for the verses in which it is stated that He, the Almighty, delivers the recompense to those who deserve it are all within the ruling of the verses of threat, and forgiveness in them is permissible, so there is no meaning to the claim of "definitiveness." Hence, it was said: "The verse is not suitable as evidence for the Mu'tazilah along with His saying: 'And He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills.'"

Al-Bayhaqi recorded from Quraysh ibn Anas, who said: "I was with ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd in his house, and he began to say: 'I will be brought on the Day of Resurrection and stood before Allah Almighty, and He will say to me: "Why did you say that the killer is in the Fire?" I will say: "You said it." Then he recited this verse: "And whoever kills a believer," etc.' I said to him: 'And there is no one in the house younger than me: Have you considered if He says to you: "For I have said: Verily, Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. So from where did you know that I did not will to forgive this one?"' He said: 'He could not respond to me with anything.'"

This is supported by what Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from Isma'il ibn Thawban, who said: "I sat with the people before the Great Calamity in the Great Mosque, and I heard them say when 'And whoever kills a believer' verse was revealed: 'The Muhajirun and the Ansar said: "It is mandatory that one who does this be in the Fire," until "Verily, Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him, etc." was revealed. Then the Muhajirun and the Ansar said: "Allah Almighty does what He wills."'" Ibn Sirin rebutted with the verse of forgiveness against those who held onto the verse of eternity, and he became angry and expelled him from his presence. The fact that the verse of eternity was revealed four or six months after that verse, as is narrated from Zayd ibn Thabit, does not change anything, and the claim of abrogation in such matters is something that is barely sound, as is not hidden.

Some people answered that the ruling of the verse is only for the killer who deems it lawful (mustahill), and his disbelief is something about which there is no doubt, so this is not a place for dispute. This is evidenced by the fact that it was revealed regarding al-Kinani, according to what has passed of his story. It has been narrated from ‘Ikrimah, Ibn Jurayj, and a group that they interpreted "intentionally" as "deeming it lawful." It was objected that the consideration is for the generality of the wording, not the specificity of the cause, and that interpreting "intentionally" as "deeming it lawful" is something that is barely acceptable, as it is neither its meaning linguistically nor legally. If a metaphor is insisted upon, there is no evidence for it, and the cause of revelation cannot serve as evidence for what you now know. Furthermore, it misses the contrast between this killing mentioned in this verse and the killing mentioned in the previous verse, which is pure accidental killing. It is said that the "deeming it lawful" is understood from attaching the killing to "the believer," because it is a derivative, and attaching a ruling to a derivative provides the causality of the principle of derivation. It is as if it were said: "And whoever kills a believer for the sake of his faith." There is no doubt that whoever kills him for that is only a "deemer of lawfulness," so he is only a disbeliever. Thus, this killer is excluded from the place of dispute, even if the cause of revelation is not considered. It was objected that "the believer," even if it is a derivative in origin, has been treated as a fixed noun (jamid). Do you not see that your saying "I spoke to a believer," for example, does not imply that you spoke to him for the sake of his faith? If attaching the ruling to "the believer" provided causality, then beating a believer, refraining from greeting him, or standing up for him would be acts of disbelief, and no one says that. Considering derivation at one time and not considering it at another is outside the realm of consideration, so understand this.

Then, He, the Almighty, mentioned here the otherworldly ruling of intentional killing and did not mention its worldly ruling, as an act of sufficiency with what preceded in the verse of Surah al-Baqarah.