92. While, on the one hand, the addition of the words "with truth" is to emphasize the accuracy of the story narrated, Allah has, on the other hand, by adding similar words at every place where historical stories have been narrated, taught us that when narrating history we too have to be precise, narrating only that which can be proved as authentic. Addition of a few innocent words can sometimes change the direction of the whole story or rob it of its admonitory aspect (Ma`arif).

Majid adds: "`With truth' is added to distinguish the story as related here from its corrupted form in the OT."

The narration in the Bible is in Genesis vi, 1 16 (Au.).

93. It is widely reported of Ibn Mas`ud, Ibn `Abbas, Murrah, and several other Companions of the Prophet that with every pregnancy Hawwa' gave birth to twins, a boy and a girl. Adam married off the girl of one birth to the boy of another, and vice versa. Two of his sons were called Qabil and Habil (Cain and Abel of the Bible), the former being elder. Adam ordered Habil to marry Qabil's sister and Qabil the sister of Habil. But, because the girl born along with Qabil was prettier, he refused to marry Habil's sister, rather wanted to marry the girl that was with him in the womb. Adam told him that she, having being with him in the womb, was not lawful to him. But he insisted. They decided to present an offering each to Allah to check whose would be accepted. Now those very days Adam was ordered by Allah to make his first visit to the House of Allah at Makkah. He took promise from Qabil that he would look after the family in his absence. The two sons decided to present their offerings. Habil was a shepherd and he presented the best of sheep he had. Qabil tended farms and presented the worst kind of vegetables he could lay his hands on. The fire descended and consumed the sheep but left the vegetables untouched. This angered Qabil who threatened him with death (Shortened). Similar reports have come from `Ali ibn abi Talib, ‘Atiyyah, Qatadah, Mujahid and others. (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir).

Ibn Kathir and Suyuti in his Al-Durr al-Manthur (Shawkani) have said that the chain of narrators is reliable. However, there is no hadith confirming the above (Au.).

It is said that Qabil presented a rotten offering because the results did not matter to him. He was bent upon marrying the girl anyway (Razi).

94. It is said that when people found ‘Amir b. `Abdullah crying at his death bed, they reminded him that he had spent his life devoted to Allah's worship. He replied, "The verse, ‘Allah accepts only of the godfearing' troubles me."

Ibn Mas`ud has said, "If I knew for sure that any of my good deed has been accepted by Allah, that would be dearer to me than an earth weight of gold."

`Umar ibn `Abdul ‘Aziz wrote to someone: "I admonish you to observe taqwa, without which no deed is accepted by Allah. And none deserve mercy and kindness, save the people of taqwa. There are many who use these words for sermonizing the people, but few who observe it in their lives" (Ma`arif).

Thanwi adds: The verse implies that to speak of one's religious achievements by way of thanks, and not by way of pride, is permissible.

95. `Abdullah ibn `Umar has said that a man those days was prohibited from killing another even in self defense (Ibn Jarir). Although, adds Razi, the same opinion has been reported of Mujahid, Habil's statement could also mean, "I shall not be the first to stretch my hands against you, despite your threats." And therefore, being the weaker of the two, Qabil waited until he found him asleep in a remote place with his head on a stone. He dropped a rock on his head.

Qurtubi writes: We of this Ummah have been allowed self defense, even if it means killing the attacker. Nonetheless, the question has been asked: is it obligatory to defend oneself, or should one act like the son of Adam? The answer is that it is obligatory to defend oneself. It is only in times of tribulation and general disorder that one might remain passive, from the fear of falling into a fitnah (e.g., what `Uthman did: Au).

As for the legality of self defense, the Sahihayn have Abu Hurayrah narrating that a man came to the Prophet and enquired:

يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَرَأَيْتَ إِنْ جَاءَ رَجُلٌ يُرِيدُ أَخْذَ مَالِى قَالَ « فَلاَ تُعْطِهِ مَالَكَ ». قَالَ أَرَأَيْتَ إِنْ قَاتَلَنِى قَالَ « قَاتِلْهُ ». قَالَ أَرَأَيْتَ إِنْ قَتَلَنِى قَالَ « فَأَنْتَ شَهِيدٌ ». قَالَ أَرَأَيْتَ إِنْ قَتَلْتُهُ قَالَ « هُوَ فِى النَّارِ ».

"Messenger of Allah! What have you to say if someone wants to take away my wealth by force?" He replied: "Do not let him take away your wealth." He asked: "What if he attacks me?" He replied: "Fight him." He asked: "What if he kills me?" He replied: "You are a martyr." He asked: "What if I kill him?" The Prophet replied: "He is in the Fire."

96. `Abdullah ibn Mas`ud, Ibn `Abbas, Murrah and several other Companions have said that Habil was alluding to the sin that Qabil would earn by murdering him and to the sins he had previously earned (Ibn Jarir, Razi and others).

97. Ibn `Abbas has said that with these words he meant to, in addition, warn Qabil of the consequence of his murder (Ibn Kathir).

98. `Abdullah ibn Mas`ud has reported the Prophet as saying:

لَا تُقْتَلُ نَفْسٌ ظُلْمًا إِلَّا كَانَ عَلَى ابْنِ آدَمَ الْأَوَّلِ كِفْلٌ مِنْ دَمِهَا وَذَلِكَ لِأَنَّهُ أَوَّلُ مَنْ سَنَّ الْقَتْلَ

"No innocent person is ever killed but a part of the sin is laid on the son of Adam; because he was the first to set up the example." The hadith is in all the six books except Abu Da'ud (Ibn Kathir).

In another report of the Sahihayn, the Prophet said:

« إِذَا تَوَاجَهَ الْمُسْلِمَانِ بِسَيْفَيْهِمَا فَالْقَاتِلُ وَالْمَقْتُولُ فِى النَّارِ ». قَالَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ هَذَا الْقَاتِلُ فَمَا بَالُ الْمَقْتُولِ قَالَ « إِنَّهُ أَرَادَ قَتْلَ صَاحِبِهِ »

"When two Muslims face one another with their swords, then the killer and the killed are both in the Fire." He was asked: "Messenger of Allah, the killer we can understand, but what about the killed?" He replied: "He was (equally) prepared to kill the other man."

Ahmad has another hadith which Sa`d ibn abi Waqqas narrated at the time of the insurrection during the time of `Uthman. It reports the Prophet as having said:

إِنَّهَا سَتَكُونُ فِتْنَةٌ الْقَاعِدُ فِيهَا خَيْرٌ مِنْ الْقَائِمِ وَالْقَائِمُ خَيْرٌ مِنْ الْمَاشِي وَالْمَاشِي خَيْرٌ مِنْ السَّاعِي قَالَ أَفَرَأَيْتَ إِنْ دَخَلَ عَلَيَّ بَيْتِي فَبَسَطَ يَدَهُ إِلَيَّ لِيَقْتُلَنِي قَالَ كُنْ كَابْنِ آدَمَ

"Soon there will be tribulations when the one sitting will be better than the one standing, the one standing better than the one walking, and the one walking better than the one striving." (Sa`d ibn `Abbas) asked: "What happens if a man enters my house and stretches his hand against me to kill me?" The Prophet replied: "Be like one of the two sons of Adam" (i.e., do not fight back).

In another hadith, that can be found in Muslim, Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i and Ahmad, Abu Dharr says he was the pillion rider of the Prophet's donkey when he asked him:

يَا أَبَا ذَرٍّ أَرَأَيْتَ إِنْ أَصَابَ النَّاسَ جُوعٌ شَدِيدٌ لَا تَسْتَطِيعُ أَنْ تَقُومَ مِنْ فِرَاشِكَ إِلَى مَسْجِدِكَ كَيْفَ تَصْنَعُ قَالَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَعْلَمُ قَالَ تَعَفَّفْ قَالَ يَا أَبَا ذَرٍّ أَرَأَيْتَ إِنْ أَصَابَ النَّاسَ مَوْتٌ شَدِيدٌ يَكُونُ الْبَيْتُ فِيهِ بِالْعَبْدِ يَعْنِي الْقَبْرَ كَيْفَ تَصْنَعُ قُلْتُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَعْلَمُ قَالَ اصْبِرْ قَالَ يَا أَبَا ذَرٍّ أَرَأَيْتَ إِنْ قَتَلَ النَّاسُ بَعْضُهُمْ بَعْضًا يَعْنِي حَتَّى تَغْرَقَ حِجَارَةُ الزَّيْتِ مِنْ الدِّمَاءِ كَيْفَ تَصْنَعُ قَالَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَعْلَمُ قَالَ اقْعُدْ فِي بَيْتِكَ وَأَغْلِقْ عَلَيْكَ بَابَكَ قَالَ فَإِنْ لَمْ أُتْرَكْ قَالَ فَأْتِ مَنْ أَنْتَ مِنْهُمْ فَكُنْ فِيهِمْ قَالَ فَآخُذُ سِلَاحِي قَالَ إِذَنْ تُشَارِكَهُمْ فِيمَا هُمْ فِيهِ وَلَكِنْ إِنْ خَشِيتَ أَنْ يَرُوعَكَ شُعَاعُ السَّيْفِ فَأَلْقِ طَرَفَ رِدَائِكَ عَلَى وَجْهِكَ حَتَّى يَبُوءَ بِإِثْمِهِ وَإِثْمِكَ

"Abu Dharr! What if starvation strikes the people to the extent that you are not able to get up and walk to the mosque? What will you do?" Abu Dharr replied: "Allah and His Messenger know better." He said: "Abstain (from asking)." He asked: "Abu Dharr! What if death strikes the people so that homes turn into graveyards? What will you do?" Abu Dharr replied: "Allah and Messenger know better." He said: "Observe patience." Then he asked: "Abu Dharr! What if people start killing each other so that grinding stones are filled in blood? What will you do?" Abu Dharr replied: "Allah and His Messenger know better." He said: "Remain in your house and lock the door from within." He asked: "What if I am not left alone?" He replied: "Then go to the people you belong to and be with them." Abu Dharr asked: "Should I bear arms?" He replied: "Then you will be one of the participants. Rather, if you fear the shine of the sword then throw a corner of your shroud over your face in order that (the assaulter kills you and) bears your sins and his sins" (Ibn Kathir).

Ahadith of similar meaning have been reported by Abu Bakr, Sa`d ibn abi Waqqas, Ibn Mas`ud, Abu Hurayrah, Khabbab b. al Art and Abu Waqid (Shawkani).

99. Qabil knew from his words that Habil was not even going to bother himself with self defense. That made it easier for him to resolve on his murder. Hence the "fa" of the Qur'an rendered as "thereupon" (Based on Bayan).

100. Most of the early commentators have said that he murdered him by dropping a rock over his head as he slept with his head over a stone (Ibn Jarir).

101. It is noticed of the ravens that they make a big hue and cry when they notice the carcass of another raven (Shabbir).

102. Although the word in the original is "saw'ah" which means the private part of a person, male or female, it is generally understood that here it is the dead body that is meant (Ibn Jarir). The word "saw'ah" has perhaps been used because the whole of a dead body is "`awrah" that should be shrouded in coffin cloth and buried (Rashid).

103. `Abdullah ibn Mas`ud, Ibn `Abbas, Murrah and several other Companions have said that since that was the first ever death, Qabil did not know how to dispose off the corpse. Therefore Allah sent two ravens that fought each other, one of them killing the other. The raven then dug a hole in the ground and hid the corpse of the dead raven. Qabil followed the example.

104. This proves that not every regretter or remorseful person is also a repentant (Thanwi).

105. Although the literal meaning of ahya is to give life, or revive, the meaning given by Ibn `Abbas for "ahya" at this point is, "one who restrained another from killing," but Mujahid has generalized it to mean anyone who saved another from death, such as saved someone from drowning, from getting burnt, or the like (Ibn Jarir).

Abu Hurayrah has reported that (during the time `Uthman was besieged in his house) he entered upon him and told him: "Leader of the faithful! I have come to defend you. And surely you have a right to strike." He replied: "No, Abu Hurayrah. Would it please you that you kill all the people with me along with them?" I said: "No." He said: "If you kill one man, it is like killing all the people. Therefore, go away, freely, rewarded (for your good intention) without any sin upon you." Abu Hurayrah says: "So I left, and did not confront the besiegers" (Ibn Kathir).

106. Yusuf Ali writes: "The story of Cain (Qabil) is referred to in a few graphic details in order to tell the story of Israel. Israel rebelled against Allah, slew and insulted righteous men who did them no harm but on the contrary came in all humility. When Allah withdrew His favor from Israel because of its sins and bestowed it on a brother nation, the jealousy of Israel plunged it deeper into sin..."

107. To flout the rules of the Shari`ah, to disobey the Messenger sent by Allah, to destroy peace of the people and to cast terror into their hearts is a declaration of war against Allah (who disapproves of such acts) and against His Messenger (who is sent to work for peace) Au.

108. Ibn `Abbas and Dahhak have said that some Jews had entered into a treaty with the Prophet, but broke it, causing corruption and disorder and, therefore, Allah revealed these verses. But `Ikrimah and Hasan al Busri have said that the allusion is to some pagans. Yet others, such as Anas, Qatadah and Suddi have said that the reference is to the particular incident of the people of ‘Uraynah who visited Madinah, embraced Islam, complained of sicknesses, were sent by the Prophet to the outskirts of Madinah for recuperation, but, as soon as they had recovered, they blinded the eyes of a Muslim looking after the cattle of Madinah, murdered him, escaped with the cattle, were given a chase and, finally, captured. This verse was revealed in connection with that incident. The Prophet punished them by blinding them, cutting off their alternative limbs and abandoned them lying in the desert until they died. However, whatever the cause of revelation, according to Qatadah, ‘Ata' Khurasani (and the great majority of scholars: Qurtubi) the punishment stated here is applicable to Muslim highway robbers and their like (Ibn Jarir, Razi and others). The hadith is well reported, including by Bukhari and Muslim. And some reports state that the criminals were eight in number (Ibn Kathir). Reports suggest that it took place in 6 A.H. (Qurtubi).

109. The Salaf have differed over the exact implication; but the general consensus is over what Ibn `Abbas has said, which is as follows. If a man attacks the wayfarers, he is the one waging war. If he kills and plunders he should be crucified (for one to three days) and then killed (by firing, or stabbing in the stomach etc.). If he kills but does not plunder he is to be killed but not crucified. If he plunders but does not kill, his limbs should be severed from opposite sides (i.e., the right hand from the wrist and left foot from the ankle: Bayan). If he threatens the security of the way and is captured before he commits any of the above then he is to be banished (Razi). Abu Mijlaz, Sa`id ibn Jubayr, Ibrahim Nakha`i, Hasan, Qatadah, Suddi and ‘Ata' are with Ibn `Abbas in this opinion (Ibn Kathir). In fact, if some kill, and others do not, then too all of them should be given the punishment as stated by the Qur'an (Qurtubi). Nevertheless, others have said that the ruler or the judge has the option to punish in either of the ways suggested by the Qur'an. Further, Ibn `Abbas, Sa`id b. Jubayr, Suddi and others have said with reference to banishment that the criminal should be chased by the Muslim law keepers until the borders of the Muslim lands so that the harm from him is mitigated. But Imam Abu Hanifah and his followers have said that such a criminal should be imprisoned (Ibn Jarir). This is because they feared that if the men are banished from one town to another, they would commit the same crimes in those towns. And, if they are pushed out of the borders of Muslim lands altogether, they might join up with the unbelievers. Therefore, "nafyum min al ard" is to be understood as imprisonment (Razi).

It has also been said that the form here is plural, "those who wage a war ...," because such criminals normally operate in bands helping and defending each other. Hence, Imam Shafe`i has concluded that if a team of men commits theft together, within a city, the whole team should be handed down the same punishment (Razi). Accordingly, it is reported of Qadi Ibn al `Arabi that when a case was brought to him of a man who held a knife against the breast of another, while his companions looted his house, he ruled that they all were muharibin, i.e., "those who wage a war" (Qurtubi).

Capital Punishments

Mufti Shafi` writes: A lack of understanding of Islamic punishments has led to much confusion among the people. Firstly, it must be understood that the secular law hands down no punishment save under one kind of it: what is known as the criminal law. In contrast, Islam has prescribed three kinds of punishments known by three terms: "Hudud, Qisas and Ta`zirat." But, before we explain the three, the following might be needed as a preamble.

Crimes in Islam are considered a transgression against the rights of Allah as well as the rights of man. However, there are some crimes that transgress more the rights of Allah, than the rights of man. Conversely, there are crimes that transgress more the rights of man than those of Allah. Another point to be understood is that the Islamic Shari`ah has not prescribed punishment for all kinds of crimes, rather, has done so for some, and left the others to the discretion of the judges. It is also possible that the government takes away this discretion from the judges, and binds them to a set of laws formulated in the light of the punishments prescribed by the Shari`ah. This was largely the case in the Muslim world of the past and this is the situation in most of the Muslim countries today where Shari`ah law is in application.

Now, punishments for those crimes which are left to the discretion of the judges are called "Ta`zirat," while those crimes for which punishments have been prescribed by the Qur'an and Sunnah are known as "Hudud and Qisas." The difference between the two, Hudud and Qisas, is that the punishments for those crimes that transgress more the rights of Allah than those of man, are known as "Hudud" (singular: Hadd, or what is commonly rendered as "capital punishment") while punishment for those crimes that transgress more the rights of man than of Allah are known as "Qisas." Now, as far as "Hudud" are concerned, they have been prescribed for five types of crimes: robbery, burglary, adultery (and fornication), false allegation of adultery, and, intoxication. Of these, punishment for the first four have been prescribed by the Qur'an and for the last one for drinking wine by the consensus of the Companions. Now, no one, no government, or judge can reduce or rescind the punishments that have been prescribed for these crimes by the Qur'an and Sunnah. Even repentance cannot save a man from Hudud punishments in this world. As for the punishment in the Hereafter, that is in the hand of Allah.

As for "Qisas," these are also punishments prescribed by the Qur'an. The difference is that the discretionary power has been delegated to those whose rights are transgressed. For example, in case of murder, the kin have the discretion to either claim the criminal's life or accept blood wit. Further, it must also be understood that where enough proof is not available, or the crime is not established beyond doubt, the courts still have their discretionary power to prescribe a Ta`zir punishment instead of a Hadd. For instance, the punishment for theft (one of the "Hudud" crimes) is amputation of a hand. But, if indisputable proof cannot be produced, yet, the evidence is very strong, then the judge might prescribe a Ta`zir, such as imprisonment for a while. This also applies to Qisas. So that, if, in a case, a murderer is forgiven by the kin, the judges might still hand down a suitable "Ta`zir" by imposing a fine or certain number of cane strikes. This is to discourage crimes. Finally, there is one exception. It is that of the highway robbers or rebels who repent before they are overpowered. That is, when they have not been besieged, and it does not seem likely at that moment that they can be overpowered. If, at that time they repent, their crimes, including those of murder, robbery etc., would be forgiven. They will not even be subjected to a Ta`zir. And the wisdom seems to be that sometimes bandits, pirates, rebels and the like are in such large numbers that either their capture is beyond the government's power, or their killing, if overpowered, proves to be a dreadful human loss. Therefore, a door for peaceful settlement between them and the government has been left open. Yet, there should be no confusion. It is the "Hadd" that is forgiven: the right of Allah viz., the punishment as stated in the verse under discussion and which Allah has relinquished. But, if they have shed blood or looted wealth, that is, transgressed the rights of some people, then that cannot be forgiven. Either they pay for their crimes to the victims or their kin, or seek their pardon, or, according to the Hanafiyyah, Qisas will be resorted to.

Quote from Shafi` ends here.

110. Ibn `Abbas, Hasan al Busri, `Ikrimah, Mujahid and others believe that this part of the verse is applicable to those of the unbelieving dacoits, robbers and others who embrace Islam. Some others believe it is applicable to Muslim robbers, bandits and the like alone, who, if they come seeking a pardon, they might be forgiven by the ruler. In support of their view, they cite an incident involving Haritha b. Badr al Tamimi during the time of `Ali ibn abi Talib, who came repentant before he was overpowered and `Ali forgave him. Another incident involving `Ali al Asadi took place during the time of Mu`awiyyah ibn abi Sufyan. `Ali al Asadi was a highway robber who, despite several attempts eluded capture. One day he heard the Qur'anic verse: "Tell them, ‘O those of My slaves who have wronged their souls, do not despair of Allah's mercy. Verily Allah forgives all sins. Surely He is very Forgiving, very Kind." `Ali al Asadi was so powerfully moved by the verse that he decided to repent. He went to Madinah and gave himself up. He was pardoned.

But some scholars hold the opinion that they might be pardoned the crime of robbery etc., but if they had shed blood or plundered wealth and property, they should be punished for those crimes (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir and others). Imam Shafe`i is also one of them who has said that in view of the transgression of two kinds of rights, (those of Allah and those of the people), even if those of Allah are forgiven by Himself, those of the people will have to be restored to them (Razi); so that, the criminal will be required to requite for the property seized or, in case of murder, pay blood wit for (Bayan).