Tafsir of Al-Ma'idah 5:29

This is another rationale for his abstention from extending his hand [to strike]. Since each of the two [reasons] constitutes an independent cause, one was not conjoined to the other, to signify their independence and to prevent the misconception that one is merely a partial cause rather than a complete one.

The root of al-baw’ (الْبَوْء) is al-luzum (adherence/commitment). In the Nihaya, it is said: "I return (abū’u) with Your favor upon me, and I return with my sin," meaning: I commit to it, return with it, and acknowledge it. The meaning is: I intend, by my submission and my refraining from assaulting you, that you should return with my sin—that is, you shall bear the burden of my sin if I were to extend my hand toward you, for you were the cause of it, and you are the one who taught me hitting and killing—and [you shall return with] your own sin for having extended your hand toward me.

This is analogous to what Muslim recorded from Abu Huraira in a marfu’ narration: "Whatever two people say when they insult one another, the sin of it is upon the beginner, provided the oppressed one does not transgress." This means that upon the beginner is the sin of his own insult, as well as the sin of his companion's insult, because he was the cause of it. However, the sin is lifted from his companion and pardoned, because he is merely retaliating and defending his honor. Do you not see the qualification: "provided the oppressed one does not transgress"? For if he exits the boundary of retaliation and transgresses, he is not spared [from sin].

This is stated in al-Kashshaf. It was said: There is a view to be taken here, because the conclusion of what he established is that the beginner bears his own sin plus the sin of his companion, unless the companion transgresses. This entire sum would then not be on the beginner, and there is no indication that the oppressed one, if he did not transgress, is absolved of the specific sin of his own insult, unless by virtue of a premise added to it, and there is no indication of such in the wording.

In al-Kashf, this was rebutted: How can it not indicate his absolution, when the Prophet's ﷺ saying, "the sin is upon the beginner," is a clear specification? And al-Kashshaf's statement, "the sin is lifted," is an explanation of the phrase "the sin is upon the beginner." His statement, "upon him is the sin of his insult and the sin of his companion's insult," is an explanation of "whatever they say." Just as it indicates that [the beginner] bears a doubled sin, it indicates that the companion's sin is dropped.

Furthermore, it was said: Perhaps the more apparent [interpretation] of the hadith is not to imply the "likeness" (al-mithl). The meaning is "the sin of their mutual reviling is upon the beginner." This was done to avoid being forced to combine the literal and the metaphorical. The objection—that if the one who is not the beginner has no sin for what he said, how can it be said "the sin of their mutual reviling," and how can the sin be attributed to him as a shared obligation?—is addressed as follows: The one who is not the beginner has a sin for what he said, but it is not upon the beginner. This does not contradict the Almighty’s saying, "No bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another," because the beginner carries it upon himself by his transgression. This is like the ruling regarding one who institutes a good or evil sunnah. Indeed, in the case at hand, the actual agent [the oppressed one] has no sin; the sin belongs to the one who caused it. The result is that the reviling of the one who is not the beginner results in two things: one in relation to its doer, which is dropped when it is a matter of defense without transgression; and the second in relation to the one who caused it, which is not dropped—meaning it is established [upon the beginner] initially, not that it is not pardoned [if it were not for the cause].

An objection was raised regarding the investigation: that the claim of the sin being lifted from the oppressed one because he is retaliating is incorrect, because if a person is insulted, he cannot extract retribution except through a judge. The answer is that the explicit wording of the hadith supports what is mentioned in al-Kashshaf. The reconciliation between this and the judicial ruling is that the cause [the insult] either results in a hadd punishment under the Sharia—in which case it must be referred to the judge—or it does not. In the latter case, it is either purely to cause distress, or a boast, or a prideful comparison where the author is described without direct cursing (such as accusations of disbelief or disobedience); in such a case, he may retaliate in kind. This is indicated by the hadith of Zainab and Aisha (may Allah be pleased with them both), and the Prophet's ﷺ saying to Aisha: "Go ahead and defend yourself." If it involves direct cursing, it must also be referred to the judge for him to perform ta'zir (discretionary punishment). The hadith is interpreted as applying to the category in which retaliation is permitted. The Prophet's ﷺ phrase "provided the oppressed one does not transgress" supports this, for if his right is to refer to the judge and he instead engages in counter-insult, he is considered a transgressor. Thus, this is a sound detailed analysis.

It was also said: The meaning of "with my sin" is the sin of my killing, and the meaning of "with your sin" is the sin you bore before my killing. This is reported from Ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas’ud, Qatadah, Mujahid, and al-Dahhak. These [scholars] left the "sin that was before" unqualified. According to al-Jubba’i and al-Zajjaj, it is the sin for which the sacrifice was not accepted, which is the lack of submission to Allah’s decree, as previously mentioned. It was also said: The meaning is the sin of my killing and your sin, which is the killing of all mankind, since you initiated the act of killing.

The attribution of sin in all these accounts to the pronoun of the speaker is because it originated from him, or it is based on the estimation of a possessive noun (mudaf). There is no need to estimate a possessive noun as was said initially. However, there is no denying that the correspondence between the first-person and second-person [in the phrase] is not entirely graceful under this [interpretation], because both sins are the sins of the addressee. But the matter is trivial. The prepositional phrase and its conjunction serve as a hal (state of being) for the subject of tabū’a, meaning: you will return bearing both sins. Perhaps his intent, in essence, is the negation of his own involvement in the sin, not the negation of his brother's involvement, since intending the sin for another is not permissible.

It was said: The intent by "sin" is what it necessitates and what results from it in terms of punishment. It is clear that the deduction of the Almighty’s saying, "so you will be among the inhabitants of the Fire," from that intention does not hold, because the addressee becoming one of the inhabitants of the Fire is a result of his returning with both sins, not of the trial of their punishment. This is manifest. To interpret the punishment as another type that leads to the Fire's punishment is rejected by what the Shaykh al-Islam said regarding His, the Exalted's, saying: "And that is the recompense of the wrongdoers." For it is explicit that his being among the inhabitants of the Fire is the completion and perfection of the punishment. The sentence is an appositive (tadhyil) confirming what preceded it, and it is the speech of Abel, as is the apparent meaning. It was said: Rather, it is a report from the Almighty to the Messenger (peace be upon him).