Al-Isrā’ (The Night Journey): Verse 33

This is the second type of prohibition mentioned by Allah in this verse. It involves several issues:

Issue 1: The Sequence of Prohibition (Murder after Adultery)

One might ask: Since murder is the greatest sin after disbelief in Allah, why did Allah first mention the prohibition against adultery (Zinā) and then the prohibition against killing?

Answer: We have previously explained that the opening of the door to adultery prevents a person from entering existence, whereas killing is the nullification of a person after they have entered existence. Since entering existence precedes its nullification, Allah mentioned adultery first, followed by killing.

Issue 2: The Principle of Prohibition in Killing

Know that the fundamental ruling regarding killing is severe prohibition (Hurmah Mughalladhah). Permissibility (Hill) is established only due to accidental, external circumstances (Asbāb ‘Āriḍiyyah). Since this is the case, it is inevitable that Allah prohibited killing absolutely, based on the original ruling. He then made an exception for the situation where killing becomes permissible—when the accidental causes occur—saying: {إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ} (except by right).

We must clarify that the original ruling on killing is prohibition. This is supported by several arguments:

1. Harm Principle: Killing is harm (Ḍarar), and the principle concerning harms is prohibition, based on His saying: {مَا جَعَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ مِنْ حَرَجٍ} (He has not laid upon you in religion any hardship) and the Prophet's saying: "There should be no harming nor reciprocating harm."
2. Divine Structure: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "The human being is the structure of the Lord; cursed is he who demolishes the structure of the Lord."
3. Purpose of Creation: Humans were created for the pursuit of worship, based on His saying: {وَمَا خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالْإِنسَ إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُونِ} (And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me), and the Prophet's saying: "The right of Allah upon His servants is that they worship Him and associate nothing with Him." Worship cannot be fully realized except in the absence of killing.
4. Corruption: Killing is corruption (Ifsād), and it must therefore be prohibited based on His saying: {وَلَا تُفْسِدُوا} (And do not spread corruption).
5. Conflict of Evidence: If evidence for the prohibition of killing conflicts with evidence for its permissibility, scholars are unanimous that the side of prohibition is stronger. If the original ruling were not prohibition, this preference would be a preference without a preferred, which is impossible.
6. Default Judgment: If we know nothing about a person except that he is a rational human being, we rule that killing him is forbidden. If we know nothing beyond his humanity, we do not rule his blood permissible. If the essence of humanity did not imply the prohibition of killing, the ruling would not be so.

Thus, these points establish that the original ruling on killing is prohibition, and its permissibility is established only by accidental circumstances.

If this is established, then Allah decreed that the original ruling is prohibition: {وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ}.

• {وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا} is a prohibition.
• {الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ} is a reiteration of the prohibition for emphasis.
• {إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ} is an exception for accidental circumstances.

Here, there are two approaches:

Approach 1: The phrase {إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ} is inherently ambiguous (Mujmal) because it does not specify what that "Right" (Ḥaqq) is. However, Allah subsequently said: {وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيِّهِ سُلْطَانًا} (And whoever is killed unjustly, We have certainly given his heir authority), meaning authority to exact retribution. This statement can serve as the clarification for the ambiguity. The meaning becomes: "Do not kill the soul Allah has forbidden, except by the Right, and that Right is that whoever is killed unjustly, We have given his heir authority to exact retribution." If this is established, the meaning of Ḥaqq must be limited to this single case. The verse then means: "Do not kill the soul Allah has forbidden except in the case of retribution (Qiṣāṣ)." Under this interpretation, the verse is an explicit text prohibiting killing except for this single reason, leaving all other cases under the original prohibition.

Approach 2: The Sunnah indicates that this Ḥaqq consists of three matters, based on the Prophet's saying: "The blood of a Muslim is not permissible except for one of three reasons: disbelief after faith, adultery after marriage, or killing a soul unjustly."

If we hold that {وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا...} is the explanation of {إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ}, then the verse is explicit that killing is only permissible for this one reason. Consequently, the Hadith becomes a specific exception (Takhṣīṣ) to this explicit verse, which falls under the principle that the general meaning of the Qur'an can be specified by a singular Hadith (Khabar al-Āḥād).

If, however, we hold that {وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا...} is not the explanation of {إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ}, then the Hadith itself explains the Ḥaqq mentioned in the verse. In this case, the issue does not hinge on the permissibility of specifying the general meaning of the Qur'an by a singular Hadith. This subtlety should be noted.

Issue 3: Enumerating the Exceptions to Prohibition

The apparent meaning of this verse suggests that the only cause for the permissibility of killing is the killing of an unjustly murdered person. However, the Hadith suggests adding two other causes: disbelief after faith, and adultery after marriage.

Furthermore, another verse indicates a fourth cause: {إِنَّمَا جَزَاءُ الَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَسَادًا أَن يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا} (The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is that they be killed or crucified... [Al-Mā’idah: 33]).

Another verse indicates a fifth cause: Disbelief (Kufr). Allah says: {قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ} (Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day...) and {وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ} (and kill them wherever you find them).

Jurists have differed on other matters:

1. Abandoning Prayer: Is the one who abandons prayer killed? Shāfi‘ī says yes; Abū Ḥanīfah says no.
2. Sodomy (Liwāṭ): Does it necessitate death? Shāfi‘ī says yes; Abū Ḥanīfah says no.
3. Sorcerer: If a sorcerer claims, "I killed so-and-so by my sorcery," does it necessitate death? Shāfi‘ī says yes; Abū Ḥanīfah says no.
4. Killing with a Blunt Weapon: Does it necessitate Qiṣāṣ? Shāfi‘ī says yes; Abū Ḥanīfah says no.
5. Refusal to Pay Zakāh: Did this necessitate killing during the time of Abū Bakr? There was disagreement.
6. Bestiality: Does it necessitate death? Most jurists say no; some say yes.

The argument for those who hold that killing is not permissible in these cases is that the verse is explicit in prohibiting killing absolutely, except for one reason: the killing of an unjustly murdered person. Therefore, in all cases other than this one reason, the original prohibition must stand. This prohibition is further reinforced by numerous proofs establishing the sanctity of blood absolutely. Abandoning these proofs requires a counter-evidence, which must be either a widely transmitted text (Mutawātir), a singular Hadith (Āḥād), or analogy (Qiyās). A Mutawātir text is absent, otherwise, there would be no disagreement. A singular Hadith is weaker than these numerous established texts. Analogy cannot override an explicit text. Therefore, based on this strong, overriding principle, the sanctity of blood is the default, except in the few enumerated cases.

Issue 4: The Authority of the Heir and Prohibition of Excess

This involves two points of discussion:

The verse establishes that the heir (Walī) has authority (Sulṭān), but it does not specify what this authority entails. There are two approaches:

1. Inference from the Next Clause: Since Allah immediately follows this by saying {فَلَا يُسْرِف فِّي الْقَتْلِ} (so let him not be excessive in killing), one might conclude that the authority is specifically the right to execute the killer. This view is weak because the prohibition against excess might refer to the oppressor who committed the initial killing, implying that the victim is supported by the establishment of this authority for his heir.
2. Clarification by Other Texts: The authority is ambiguous (Mujmal) and is clarified by other verses and Hadith.
   • Verse: The verse in Al-Baqarah: {كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْقِصَاصُ فِي الْقَتْلَى الْحُرُّ بِالْحُرِّ وَالْعَبْدُ بِالْعَبْدِ} (Prescribed for you is retribution in the case of the killed: the free man for the free man, and the slave for the slave...) up to {فَمَنْ عُفِيَ لَهُ مِنْ أَخِيهِ شَيْءٌ فَاتِّبَاعٌ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَأَدَاءٌ إِلَيْهِ بِإِحْسَانٍ} (But if the killer is forgiven by the heir of the slain anything, then [the killer must pay] what is due with recognized goodness, and [the heir] must pay it with kindness). We explained in the Tafsir of that verse that the obligated choice is between Qiṣāṣ (retribution) and Diyyah (blood money).
   • Hadith: The Prophet's saying on the Conquest of Makkah: "Whoever kills a victim, his family has two choices: if they wish, they kill [the killer]; and if they wish, they take the blood money."

Under this second approach, when the heir gains the authority to demand Qiṣāṣ or the authority to demand Diyyah, the subsequent phrase {فَلَا يُسْرِف فِّي الْقَتْلِ} means: It is preferable that he does not proceed immediately to execute the killer, but rather accepts the Diyyah or opts for pardon, as Allah says: {وَأَن تَعْفُوا أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَى} (And that you forgive is nearer to righteousness). The preposition fī (in) here can be interpreted as bi (by means of), meaning: "Do not become excessive by means of killing."

The term {مَظْلُومًا} (unjustly killed) is indefinite (Nakirah), which typically denotes perfection or completeness. Thus, the slain person must be perfectly complete in the quality of being unjustly treated to fall under this text.

Shāfi‘ī argued that if a Muslim kills a Dhimmi (protected non-Muslim subject), this verse does not apply. His proof is that the Dhimmi is a polytheist (Mushrik), and the blood of a polytheist is permissible. He proves they are polytheists because Allah says: {إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَغْفِرُ أَن يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَلِكَ لِمَن يَشَاءُ} (Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him in worship, but He forgives what is less than that of whom He wills). If the disbelief of Jews and Christians were different from Shirk, then, according to this verse, it should be forgivable for some people. Since it is never forgiven for anyone, it proves their disbelief is Shirk. Furthermore, Allah says regarding Christians: {لَقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ ثَالِثُ ثَلَاثَةٍ} (They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allah is the third of three"). This trinity is either in attributes (which is false, as that is the truth held by the Sunnis) or in essence (which is certainly Shirk). Thus, the Dhimmi is proven to be a polytheist. The polytheist must be killed based on {اقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ} (Fight the polytheists). This evidence suggests the permissibility of the Dhimmi's blood, or at least a strong suspicion of permissibility.

If this is established, the Dhimmi is not perfectly complete in the quality of being unjustly killed, and thus does not fall under {وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا...}.

As for a free man killing a slave, he falls under this verse. However, the verse {كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْقِصَاصُ فِي الْقَتْلَى الْحُرُّ بِالْحُرِّ وَالْعَبْدُ بِالْعَبْدِ} indicates the prohibition of killing a free man for a slave, based on several points. That verse is more specific (Akhass) than {وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا...}, and the specific takes precedence over the general. Therefore, this verse cannot be used as proof for the ruling that intentional killing necessitates Qiṣāṣ, nor for the ruling that a Muslim must be killed for a Dhimmi, nor for the ruling that a free man must be killed for a slave.

This phrase involves two points of discussion:

First Discussion: There are several interpretations:

1. Excessive Retaliation: That the heir should not kill more than one person if the victim belonged to a noble tribe, and the tribe of the killer belonged to a lower status. The custom in the Days of Ignorance was that if one of them killed someone from a noble tribe, the victim's heirs would kill many people from the killer's tribe. Allah forbade this and commanded limiting the killing only to the actual killer.
2. Not Accepting the Killer: That the heirs should not be satisfied with killing the killer, as the people of Jāhiliyyah used to target the nobles of the killer's tribe and kill specific individuals while leaving the actual killer alive.
3. Mutilation: That the heir should not be satisfied with killing the killer but should also mutilate him or cut off his limbs. Al-Qaffāl suggested that all these meanings could be included, as they all constitute excessiveness (Isrāf).

Second Discussion: Most reciters read {فَلَا يُسْرِف} with a Yā’ (implying the third person, "he should not be excessive"). There are two interpretations:

1. The meaning is: The heir should not be excessive in killing.
2. The pronoun refers back to the initial unjust killer, meaning: That oppressor should not be excessive, and his excessiveness is his act of committing that unjust killing.

Ḥamzah and Al-Kisā’ī read {فَلَا} with a Tā’ (addressing the second person, "Do not be excessive"). This reading has two possibilities:

1. The address is to the initial killer: "O human, do not be excessive," meaning, do not commit that killing, for if you kill unjustly, retribution will be exacted from you.
2. The address is to the heir: "Do not be excessive in killing, O heir," meaning, be satisfied with exacting Qiṣāṣ and do not seek more.

Regarding the phrase {إِنَّهُ كَانَ مَنصُورًا} (Indeed, he was aided): There are three views:

1. It is addressed to the initial unjust killer: "Do not do that, for that slain person will be aided (victorious) in this world and the Hereafter." His aid in this world is through the killing of his killer, and in the Hereafter, through abundant reward for him and abundant punishment for his killer.
2. The heir will be aided in killing that unjust killer, so he should be content with that, as one aided by Allah should not seek excess.
3. The unjust killer should be satisfied with the execution of Qiṣāṣ and not seek more.

Based on the first and second views, both the slain person and his heir are aided by Allah. It is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās (may Allah be pleased with him) that he told ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib (peace be upon him): "By Allah, Ibn Abī Sufyān will prevail over you, because Allah says: {وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيِّهِ سُلْطَانًا}." Al-Ḥasan also said: "By Allah, Mu‘āwiyah did not prevail over ‘Alī except by the saying of Allah: {وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيِّهِ سُلْطَانًا}."

Verse 34

(The excerpt ends here, and the detailed exegesis for this verse is not provided in the source text.)