Al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread): Verse 32

"For that reason..."

There are several issues concerning this verse:

Issue 1: The Meaning of "For that reason" (من أجل ذالك)

This phrase means "because of his deed."

Two questions arise regarding the preceding context:

1. The First Question: If the statement "For that reason we prescribed for the Children of Israel the law of retaliation" refers to the story of Qabil (Cain) and Habil (Abel), this is problematic because there seems to be no direct connection between the incident of Qabil and Habil and the obligation of Qisas (retaliation) upon the Children of Israel.
2. The Second Question: The ruling of Qisas is established for all nations. What is the benefit of specifying it for the Children of Israel?

The Answer to the First Question (in two ways):

1. The First View (Al-Hasan): This killing (the one necessitating the law) occurred among the Children of Israel, not between the two sons of Adam from his loins. (We have discussed this previously.)
2. The Second View: We concede that this killing occurred between the sons of Adam. However, the phrase "For that reason" (من أجل ذالك) does not refer to the story of Qabil and Habil. Rather, it refers to the types of corruption mentioned earlier in this very story (referring to verses 30-31):
   • His statement: "So he became one of the losers" (5:30), indicating loss in both religion and worldly affairs.
   • His statement: "So he became one of the regretful" (5:31), indicating that regret, anguish, and sorrow filled his heart, even though it was of no avail.

Therefore, the meaning is: "For that reason [i.e., because of the types of corruption resulting from unlawful, intentional killing that we mentioned], We prescribed for the Children of Israel the Qisas from the right of the killer." This is a sound answer, and God knows best.

The Answer to the Second Question:

Although the obligation of Qisas upon the killer is general across all religions and nations, the emphasis mentioned here concerning the Children of Israel is not established in all religions.

Allah ruled here that the killing of a single soul is equivalent to the killing of all mankind.

The purpose of this exaggeration is to explain the severe punishment for intentional, aggressive killing. The intent behind explaining this exaggeration is to show that the Jews, despite knowing this immense emphasis, proceeded to kill the Prophets and Messengers. This demonstrates the extreme hardness of their hearts and their ultimate distance from obedience to God Almighty.

Since the purpose of mentioning these stories is to console the Prophet (peace be upon him) regarding the incident where they intended to harm him and his senior companions, specifying the Children of Israel with this great exaggeration is appropriate to the discourse and reinforces the intended meaning.

Issue 2: Recitations of "For that reason" (من أجل ذالك)

It has been recited as (مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَلِكَ) with the omission of the hamza (initial glottal stop) and the opening of the nūn (by transferring its vowel) onto it. Abu Ja'far recited it as (إِجْلِ ذَلِكَ) with a kasra on the hamza. This is a known linguistic variation. When the hamza is lightened (omitted), the nūn takes the kasra from the hamza.

Issue 3: The Issue of Divine Causality (Ta'leel)

Those who argue for analogy (Qiyas) state that the verse indicates that the rulings of God Almighty can be based on effective causes ('ilal). This is because God said: "For that reason we prescribed for the Children of Israel..." This explicitly states that the prescription of those rulings is caused by those meanings indicated by "For that reason."

Those who support this view also argue that this verse indicates that God's rulings are based on the welfare (masalih) of the servants. If this is established, it becomes impossible for God to create disbelief and reprehensible acts among them while intending their occurrence, because creating and intending reprehensible acts prevents Him from being one who considers welfare. This invalidates the causality mentioned in this verse.

Our Companions (Ash'ari scholars) state that affirming causality for God's rulings is impossible for several reasons:

1. If the cause ('illah) were eternal (qadim), the effect (ma'lul) must also be eternal. If the cause were created (muhdath), it would require another cause, leading to an infinite regress (infinite chain of causes).
2. If a ruling were caused by a specific factor, the existence or non-existence of that factor relative to God would either be equal (in which case it could not be a cause), or one would be preferred over the other. This preference would imply that God derives that preference from the action, meaning He is inherently deficient and completed by something else, which is impossible.
3. It is established that an action depends on a motive/inclination (dā'iyah). An infinite regress of motives is impossible; they must terminate in the First Mover/Inclination, which originates in the servant not from the servant himself, but from God. It is established that when the inclination arises, the action must occur. Under this framework, everything originates from God, which prevents the causality of God's actions and rulings.

Therefore, the apparent meaning of this verse is among the ambiguous verses (mutashabihat), not the clear legal rulings (muhkamat). What confirms this is God's statement: "Say, 'Then who has authority over anything from Allah if He intends to destroy the Messiah, the son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth?'" (5:17). This is explicit proof that everything God does is good, and His creation and judgment are not dependent on observing welfare.

Issue 4: The Meaning of "Or mischief on earth" (أو فساد فى الارض)

Al-Zajjaj said that this phrase is coordinated with the word "soul" (نَفْس). The meaning is: "Whoever kills a soul without [retaliation for] a soul, or without [committing] mischief on earth."

God mentioned this because killing becomes permissible for several reasons:

1. Retaliation (Qisas): This is what is meant by "Whoever kills a soul except for a soul [in retaliation] or mischief on earth."
2. Disbelief combined with open warfare (Hirabah).
3. Apostasy after belief.
4. Highway robbery, which is meant by the following verse: "The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption..." (5:33).

God Almighty encompassed all these possibilities in the phrase "or mischief on earth."

Issue 5: The Equivalence of Killing One Soul to Killing All Mankind

The Problem: How can the killing of a single soul be equivalent to the killing of all mankind? It is impossible for a part to equal the whole.

The commentators offered several answers to this question, all based on one premise: The comparison of one thing to another does not necessitate that they are similar in all aspects. Saying "This resembles that" is more general than saying "It resembles it in every aspect" or "in some aspects."

Given this premise, here are the answers:

1. The First Answer (Exaggeration for Magnification): The purpose of comparing the killing of one soul to the killing of all souls is to exaggerate and magnify the gravity of intentional, aggressive killing. Just as the killing of all creation is considered a tremendous act by everyone, the killing of a single human must be considered tremendous and awe-inspiring. The goal is participation in the magnitude of awe, not participation in the quantity of the act. How could it not be tremendous when God also said: "And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment" (4:93)?

2. The Second Answer (The Degree of Effort to Prevent): If all people knew that one person intended to kill them all, they would undoubtedly repel him with an effort that would prevent him from achieving his goal. Similarly, if they knew he intended to kill one specific person, their effort and diligence in preventing him from killing that one person must be the same as their effort in the first scenario.

3. The Third Answer (The State of the Killer's Heart): By committing intentional, aggressive murder, the killer has prioritized the inclination of desire and anger over the inclination toward obedience. When this is the case, this preference is established relative to every individual. It implies that if anyone were to challenge him in any of his demands, he would kill them if he could. The intention of a believer in good deeds is better than his action, and likewise, the intention of a believer in evil deeds is worse than his action. Thus, the meaning becomes: "Whoever kills a human intentionally and aggressively, it is as if he killed all people," because his heart harbors the intent to kill everyone who opposes him.

These three answers are sound.

Issue 6: Saving One Soul is Like Saving All Mankind

"And whoever saves one life, it is as if he had saved mankind entirely."

Saving a soul here means delivering it from fatal perils, such as fire, drowning, extreme hunger, or extreme heat or cold. The discussion regarding the equivalence of saving one soul to saving all souls follows the same logic established for the killing of one soul versus the killing of all souls.

Then God Almighty said:

"And certainly did Our Messengers come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed, many of them, after that, in the land, were transgressors."

The meaning is that many of the Jews, after the coming of the Messengers and after We prescribed the prohibition of killing for them, were transgressors (مُسْرِفُونَ), meaning they were excessive in killing, disregarding its gravity.

"Indeed, 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 or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides, or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment." (5:33)