Al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread): (45) And We prescribed for them therein...

The meaning is that the Almighty clarified in the Torah that the ruling for the adulterer who is muhsan (married) is stoning. The Jews altered and changed this. In this verse, He also clarified that the Almighty prescribed in the Torah that a life is for a life, yet these Jews changed this ruling as well. They favored the Banu Nadir over the Banu Qurayza, restricting the obligation of qawad (retaliation in kind) to the Banu Qurayza and not the Banu Nadir. This is the connection (wajh al-nadḥm) of the verse.

There are several issues in the verse:

Al-Kisā'ī recited: al-'aynu, al-anfu, al-udhunu, al-sinnu, and al-jurūḥu all with the nominative case (raising). There are several interpretations for this:

1. It is coordinated with the grammatical position (maḥall) of {that a life for a life} (an an-nafsa bin-nafs), because the meaning of "We prescribed" (wa katabnā) is "We decreed/said" (wa qulnā), implying: "We prescribed for them a life for a life."
2. The prescription (kitābah) applies to such complete clauses. One says: "I wrote Al-Ḥamdu Lillāh" (Praise be to God), and one reads: {a Surah which We sent down} (sūratan anzalnāhā).
3. They are raised based on isti'nāf (a new beginning). The meaning is: "The life is to be killed for a life, and the eye is to be gouged for the eye." This is similar to His saying in this Surah: {Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews, and the Christians and the Sabians...} (Al-Baqarah: 62).

Ibn Kathīr, Ibn ‘Āmir, and Abū ‘Amr recited half of everything with the accusative case (naṣb), except for {al-jurūḥu} which is nominative. Thus, al-'ayna, al-anfā, al-udhunā are accusative, coordinated with an-nafsa. Then, {al-jurūḥu} is the subject (mubtada’), and {and for wounds, retaliation} (wal-jurūḥu qisāṣ) is its predicate.

Nāfi‘, ‘Āṣim, and Ḥamzah recited everything with the accusative case, coordinating some parts with others, and the predicate for all of them is qisāṣ.

Nāfi‘ recited {al-udhun} with a quiescent dhāl (silent dhāl), while the rest recited it with a stressed dhāl (vowelized dhāl). Both are valid linguistic forms.

Ibn ‘Abbās said this means: "We obligated upon them in the Torah that a life is for a life," referring to one who kills a soul without due retribution (qawad). God did not assign a blood-money (diyah) for the life or the wound; it is either pardon or retaliation.

From Ibn ‘Abbās, it is also narrated that they (the Jews) did not execute a man for killing a woman, until this verse was revealed.

As for the limbs (al-aṭrāf), retaliation applies between any two individuals in the same way it applies to life, provided they are equal in soundness/wholeness. If retaliation is waived for a life, it is also waived for the limbs. When God mentioned some organs, He generalized the ruling to all of them, saying: {and for wounds, retaliation} (wal-jurūḥu qisāṣ). This covers everything from which retaliation can be exacted, such as the lips, the penis, the testicles, the nose, the feet, the hands, and others. As for what retaliation cannot be exacted from—such as a bruise on the flesh, a fracture in a bone, or a wound in the abdomen where death is feared—there is compensation (arsh) or arbitration (ḥukūmah).

Know that this verse indicates that this was a law in the Torah. Whoever says that the law of those before us is binding upon us unless explicitly abrogated, argues that this verse is evidence for our law. Whoever denies this says it is not evidence against us.

{Qisāṣ} here is a verbal noun (maṣdar) intended to mean the passive participle (the object), meaning: "and the wounds are to be retaliated upon each other" (al-jurūḥu mutaqāṣṣah ba‘ḍuhā bi ba‘ḍ).

The pronoun in {for him} (lahu) can refer back to the forgiver (al-‘āfī) or the one who was wronged (al-ma‘fū ‘anhu).

The First Opinion: The injured party or the guardian of the slain person, if they pardon, that pardon is an expiation for them (the forgiver). This is supported by the verse in Al-Baqarah regarding retaliation: {And that you forgive is nearer to righteousness} (Al-Baqarah: 237). This is also supported by the Prophet's saying: "Is any one of you unable to be like Abū Ḍumḍum? When he left his house, he would give away his honor to the people." It is narrated by ‘Ubadah ibn aṣ-Ṣāmit that the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) said: "Whoever gives charity from his body for something, God will expiate for him from his sins by an amount equivalent to it." This is the view of most commentators.

The Second Opinion: The pronoun in {it is an expiation for him} refers back to the perpetrator (the killer or the one who inflicted the injury). Meaning, if the victim pardons the perpetrator, that pardon becomes an expiation for the perpetrator, meaning God will not hold him accountable after that pardon. As for the victim who pardoned, his reward is with God.

A question arises here: Earlier, the Almighty said: {then it is those who are the disbelievers} (Al-Mā’idah: 44), and here He says: {they are the wrongdoers}. Disbelief (kufr) is greater than wrongdoing (ẓulm). Why mention the lesser threat after mentioning the greatest one?

The Answer: Disbelief, in the sense that it is a denial and rejection of the Lord's bounty, is kufr. In the sense that it entails remaining in severe, eternal punishment, it is an injustice (ẓulm) against oneself. Therefore, in the first verse, God mentioned what relates to the shortcoming in fulfilling the right of the Creator (Glorified and Exalted is He). In this verse, He mentioned what relates to the shortcoming in relation to one's own self.